Impressive as always, Levente! But I don't understand this:

Levente Laszlo wrote:Now, there seem to be two elements that suggest Ptolemy is introducing a "house system": (1) the use of the word "place", and (2) the use of the traditional names (Good Daimon, God, later also Bad Daimon) of the places.
[...]
To sum up, until ca. 500, the interpretations of Ptolemy's instructions ranged from an "equal system"-like to a quadrant-based proportional, but there's no evidence that the instructions were considered to be introducing a "house system".

Is it the 'house system' part that you find doubtful, or the 'introducing' part? Because if it is the former, I don't see how there could be any reasonable doubt that Ptolemy is referring to the standard dodecatropos, using what we today would call an equal-house system. If it quacks like a duck...

With similar descriptions found in both Valens and Firmicus (and a precursor of sorts, as I said yesterday, in the form of particular decans from the rising one being assigned particular meanings), Ptolemy's brief outline seems neither surprising nor problematic to me.

On the aspect question: Whether one uses whole-sign or equal houses, it is a fact that the 11th place will form a sextile -- that is, one side of a hexagon -- with the 1st place (or, in other words, each of the degrees making up the 11th place will form such a figure with the corresponding degree in the 1st place). This geometrical configuration is not in itself an aspect, that is, an act of a planet witnessing something by sending out a ray of light or vision. I won't presume to 'channel' Ptolemy or any other ancient author with regard to the relationship between house division and aspects, but I think this conceptual distinction is worth keeping in mind.

On the aspect question: Whether one uses whole-sign or equal houses, it is a fact that the 11th place will form a sextile -- that is, one side of a hexagon -- with the 1st place (or, in other words, each of the degrees making up the 11th place will form such a figure with the corresponding degree in the 1st place). This geometrical configuration is not in itself an aspect, that is, an act of a planet witnessing something by sending out a ray of light or vision. I won't presume to 'channel' Ptolemy or any other ancient author with regard to the relationship between house division and aspects, but I think this conceptual distinction is worth keeping in mind.

Ok, but it is worth mentioning that the Lots should be calculated in whole sign house system, because they do not make any sense in an equal house system, as explained in previous posts. It is interesting that Ptolemy uses only one Lot - Fortune.

I said yesterday, in the form of particular decans from the rising one being assigned particular meanings

As for the decans, what Levente probably meant (and I also pointed out a few pages before) is that the first rising decan decides the places of the 35 decans in the same way as the first rising sign decides the places of the other eleven signs. The meanings are similar because of their relationship.

Equal houses are contrary to this approach, as the decans are specific 10 degrees segments (with strict boundaries like the twelvefold zodiac) - for example only the 1st to 10th degree rising of Cancer is Sothis, while using equal houses with the 2nd and 8th degree of Cancer will produce radically different results.

Thus decans are similar to whole signs. If we are in Egypt in the time of Hephaistio, and if Sothis (Septet?) is rising between 1 - 10 Cancer indicating birth, then the 28th culminating decan Chontare (Bekatha?) signifies livelihood, the anti-culminating 10th Souchoe (Qet?) decan signifies death.

In the same way if Cancer Rising signifies birth, the culminating Aries signifies livelihood, and the anti-culminating image of Libra signifies death.

Thus, the ecliptic boundaries (powerful, scientific and allotted by the gods, and espoused by those who have observed the heavens for 490 000 years) must be taken into account with decans and signs.

Martin Gansten wrote:Is it the 'house system' part that you find doubtful, or the 'introducing' part?

Neither, actually. I just wanted to record that there were different interpretations on what Ptolemy exactly meant already in the antiquity, and the most trivial equal-type interpretation is only one of them. But, admittedly, I used the expression "house system" in quite a vague way, so let me clarify my position on it: when I say "house system" I refer to such a division resulting in a dodecatropos that can be used in lieu of another similar "house system". (This is a circular definition, so let's have the axiom that the whole-sign system is such a "house system".) Now, I'd call Ptolemy's scheme outlined in Apot. 3.11.3 a "house system" if it were used for topical investigation consistently throughout the work. Sources D, E, and F described above clearly introduce "house systems", D and E even apparently inspired by Ptolemy, but in the Apotelesmatics there are several passages that make it obvious Ptolemy didn't mean to make it a "house system"; on the contrary, whole signs seem to be considered outside chapter 11 of book III.

My definition of "house system" may appear artificial and strained, but only "house systems" defined in this way may entirely supplement or substitute other "house systems". Consequently, we can say that a transposed "Porphyry" and a transposed "Alchabitius" house system is attested from ca. 500 but before that only two house systems are described, the whole-sign and the "equal". Apparently, only the whole-sign system is used in extant horoscopes.*

The very reason why I'm introducing this definition of "house systems" is to enable us to separate full-fledged systems from their partial and schematic predecessors. For example, the transposed and untransposed "Porphyry house system" (or, to use the Kennedy-North classification, the "Dual Longitude Method") appears around 500, but its main motivation - that is to acknowledge the horizon-Asc and meridian-MC as cardines - had been known long before, and the reasoning had been applied for investigating the topic of length of life (Orion and Pancharius, the latter in a modified form to reconcile it with Ptolemy's description; also "Porphyry" [source C above]).

I think perhaps we can agree on the following: although the astrologers mostly seemed to be happy with sign-based considerations (positions of stars, the ascendant, aspects, lots), there was also a tendency to fine-tune the system to degrees, which resulted in dilemmas. (Hence the "equal systems"**.) Another aspect of this fine-tuning was the notice of the meridian-MC as something important. Now, various authors acknowledged and approached these dilemmas differently; but in practice, they seem to have resolved the problems most reasonably: using the good ol' "whole-sign" system.

* I think we've been talking at cross-purposes. Excluding the "the Sun is here, the Moon is there, the rest is not important; hasta la vista, baby!"-type "original" horoscopes (which were probably interpreted orally, perhaps even using a tablet), and focusing on the horoscopes appended with any interpretation - in other words, concentrating on relevant data -, we (1) never meet instructions that would basically mean an "exotic" (that is, not whole-sign) "house system" is being used, and (2) the data comply with the whole-sign rationale.*** I don't think in these cases we're entitled to doubt on the author's motivations.

** Besides the well-known "equal system" that begins with the ascendant, there are traces of another "equal" one that has the ascendant in its middle (15th degree). (The soul of Johannes Vehlow must be rejoicing now.) Besides the known passages of Dorotheus and Antiochus (referring to Timaeus, who in turn referred to Hermes), the position of the ascendant to Cancer 15 in the thema mundi may confirm its existence, but the most immediate description is given in the "anonymous commentary" to Ptolemy (3.11.3): "he (i.e., Ptolemy) doesn't follow the opinion of the Egyptians, that is, that one must take the 15 pre-ascending [and] (the 15) post-ascending degrees." However, even if this "Vehlowish" system existed, there is simply not enough evidence to call it another "house system".

*** The two or so examples from Valens that append 10th-place interpretations to the sign where the meridian-MC falls are no exceptions as they don't satisfy the criterion of a "house system" outlined above. That's why I dismiss Paul's objections.

Levente Laszlo wrote:I'd call Ptolemy's scheme outlined in Apot. 3.11.3 a "house system" if it were used for topical investigation consistently throughout the work.

Thanks for articulating your definition of the term, Levente. As you predict, I personally do find it too narrow. I agree that it would be nice to have plentiful and unambiguous evidence, but to insist on it is another matter. It's good to have a methodical approach, but if the method leads one to ignore numerous 'anomalies', then I think it probably needs to be adjusted, or one is in risk of simply fitting the evidence to one's assumptions. Still, to each his own.

To me it seems clear that Ptolemy had fairly little use for houses, but that when he did use them (which he does not only in his length-of-life procedure, but also in discussions of illness and injuries and of children, as I recall), he did so pretty much in a standard fashion.

I also question the assumption that only the whole-sign system is used in extant horoscopes. I think there are many instances where equal or whole-sign houses may have been intended, and that, at the present state of our knowledge, it would be best to keep an open mind. Indeed, if there really was an

opinion of the Egyptians [...] that one must take the 15 pre-ascending [and] (the 15) post-ascending degrees

-- then that opens the field up even more. (Thanks for that; I wasn't aware of it, but of course it resonates both with the 15-degree rule of Dorotheus and with Indian practice. Do you have a CCAG reference for it?)

I think perhaps we can agree on the following: although the astrologers mostly seemed to be happy with sign-based considerations (positions of stars, the ascendant, aspects, lots), there was also a tendency to fine-tune the system to degrees, which resulted in dilemmas.

I have some reservations about the 'mostly', but otherwise, yes.

Martin Gansten wrote:It's good to have a methodical approach, but if the method leads one to ignore numerous 'anomalies', then I think it probably needs to be adjusted, or one is in risk of simply fitting the evidence to one's assumptions.

Do you think my approach to "house systems" is such?

Martin Gansten wrote:I also question the assumption that only the whole-sign system is used in extant horoscopes. I think there are many instances where equal or whole-sign houses may have been intended [...]

Could you give some examples? I really want to keep an open mind and, honestly, try to be as unbiased as possible.

Martin Gansten wrote:Do you have a CCAG reference for it?

It's in In Claudii Ptolemaei Quadripartitum enarrator ignoti nominis (freely downloadable on many sites), p. 109, from the fourth to the second line from the bottom. The emendation is in Bouché-Leclercq, p. 270, fn. 1, but it's wholly confirmed by some better mss I've just looked at. The right text is ο??? γὰ?? ἕπεται τῇ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων δόξῃ, ὅτι χ??ὴ ιε μοί??ας καὶ π??οανενεχθείσας καὶ ???παναφε??ομένας λαβεῖν.

Hi Paul,

sorry for the late reply; I understand you've pulled back from the conversation for a while, but I don't want to leave your post unaddressed.

Paul wrote:What I was saying here is that my suggestion is less complicated (answering the charge that it was complex) than other suggestions out there, and offering this as an example of something that I think is more complex. This isn't my claim therefore, I'm giving an overview of a point I actually disagree with.

Yes, you're right, I was reading not very carefully. Sorry about that. Now as I see your claim is "houses were like aspects, you can do it by sign or by degree," isn't it? Because then I can agree with you, at least as long as it remains such a broad statement.

Paul wrote:

The rest, when any evidence is available, use the "whole-sign" method exclusively, and so do early Arabic astrologers, having adopted Hellenistic methods.

They don't though. I've already provided an example from Valens.

The example you offered, and the one or more further occurrences in Valens, are evidence that in some cases, Valens wanted the meridian-MC to be somehow incorporated into the interpretation. (And, of course, it's mirrored for the meridian-IMC.) These cases, however, don't necessarily imply he had a fully developed "house system" in mind.

Paul wrote:I just wondered what Riley's survey had to offer to the arguments about whole sign houses and you haven't actually provided much in the way of that argument.

It was all about the arguments grounded in some (for me, untenable) assumptions about the structure and intention of Valens' work, like taking chapter 2 of book III as a sort of culmination.

What I actually say is that we cannot make simple cross-inferences (like, for example, that Valens uses a "house system" in 3.2, so the examples in 5.6 and 7.6 represent this system) since it seems (1) the various parts of the work were originally composed separately, (2) the rationale of the present edition isn't entirely obvious, and (3) there are also lost passages and possible writings never incorporated into this corpus.

Paul wrote:But it would be nice to at least get to a point where we disagree having both looked at the evidence without assumption that one person hasn't.

I don't think so. While I always try to look at all the available evidence, it often occurs that I overlook something, and I like to be corrected or informed on these things. That's why I come here to discuss, dispute and argue instead of writing blog posts and making authoritative claims without substantial feedback.

The only problem I perceive is when such disputes make a personal twist that results in quarrels. Still, these are not personal matters and shouldn't be treated as such. I admit that arguments can be sometimes annoying, but this is their nature, and nobody is obliged to take part if they don't want to be challenged.

Is it the 'house system' part that you find doubtful, or the 'introducing' part? Because if it is the former, I don't see how there could be any reasonable doubt that Ptolemy is referring to the standard dodecatropos, using what we today would call an equal-house system. If it quacks like a duck...

I've tried to research this, but it seems like you are the first person who figured out it is a duck. I do not think there is any reasonable doubt that Ptolemy, here and elsewhere (like in ''eastern'' and ''western'' quadrants or his regional explanation of the twelfth place) used an ''equal-house'' system that begins five degrees before the Ascendant. It does, however, support my assertion that the ''nonagesimal'' was often deliberately employed as ''Midheaven'', as Ptolemy had all the necessary skill to compute quadrants (although he does mention the meridian too as midheaven in 3.2).

I think you have to use Equal/whole sign houses and quadrant together.
Mars is now in my Ascendant squaring my natal Moon. Moon rules 2nd sign and 3rd quadrant house.
Ive been cautious about that and even thought that a female client would not pay my online reading so I asked her to send me a confirmatuon of payment.
Which she did.
In the end what happened was that I had a conflict about money with a female sibling.So both moon as 2nd and 3rd ruler worked.

Paul wrote:

Levente Laszlo wrote: Therefore, all claims based on the assumption that the structure of Anthologies in its present form exhibits anything of Valens's intentions are flawed.
...
As you know, however, there are no nativities in Anthologies utilizing quadrants either topically or dynamically or in any other ways, and this absence of evidence doesn't really substantiate your claim that "Valens used whole signs for topics and then Porphyry for quantitive measurement and then maybe Equal for only some other specialised subject matter".

Actually that's not my claim so I assume you haven't actually read my posts. What I was saying here is that my suggestion is less complicated (answering the charge that it was complex) than other suggestions out there, and offering this as an example of something that I think is more complex. This isn't my claim therefore, I'm giving an overview of a point I actually disagree with. I realise there a lot of posts here and it may be unreasonable to read them all.

The rest, when any evidence is available, use the "whole-sign" method exclusively, and so do early Arabic astrologers, having adopted Hellenistic methods.

They don't though. I've already provided an example from Valens.

At this point I must say that the whole sign adherence starts to read like a religious article of faith.

Therefore, all claims based on the assumption that the structure of Anthologies in its present form exhibits anything of Valens's intentions are flawed.
...
The overwhelming evidence, therefore, suggests that if we must make a generalized statement about the practice of Hellenistic astrologers, we can't but say they used whole signs; there is simply no evidence for a practical usage of quadrant-based divisions before the late fifth century.

Apart from of course where there is.

I have to assume therefore that all claims are flawed, except of course those claims which you yourself conclude with? Anyway I just wondered what Riley's survey had to offer to the arguments about whole sign houses and you haven't actually provided much in the way of that argument.

I have had many discussions about whole sign houses and I know from experience that these things become circular so let's just assume we disagree with one another. But it would be nice to at least get to a point where we disagree having both looked at the evidence without assumption that one person hasn't.

Check Antiochus pages 32-33. He uses Porphiry houses,two centuries before Porphyry