My working hypothesis: "There is not a single historical document from antiquity that provides historiographic evidence for the preferential and systematic use of whole-sign houses or justify the assumption of preferential use of a related whole-sign house system in ancient astrological practice."

Now try to falsify that. - I claim nobody can regardless of which theory of science is applied in the respective field of science.

"Reading between the lines" and Inferences are always scientifically problematic. - I remind everyone of the massive errors of Prof. Festugière in the academic field of research as to the Corpus Hermeticum in the second half of the 20ieth Century.
When we look at the Philosophies of Sciences in the different fields - Science of Religion - Social Sciences - Philological Sciences - Historical Sciences - Philosophy of Science etc. - it is good advice to be very careful and humbly restraint.

The argument "Reading between the lines is typically not permissible in court, whereas it is both sanctioned and often necessary for a historian (the important prerequisite being, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that you are able first to read the actual lines). So I don't mind inferences as such; I think they are necessary. We just need to make sure that they are based on all the available evidence, impartially weighed, and not unduly influenced by personal preferences." has indeed the massive problem of subjective idiocy. To demonstrate that: Have a look at the facebook discussions about Deborah Houldings vimeo Presentation:

https://vimeo.com/765620082/7d6469fe5b and the discussion here:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=71

The Bolognascenery in European Universities (except Russia) and the US - Option of getting a B.A. in Genderstudies, embracing the idea that men can have babies and the option of changing your gender daily by thought. We better apply pre - Bologna - Standards.


Best Wishes
Volker

This is from https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/view ... &start=105

as pdf and a result here:

https://talk.vonabisw.de/Valens/WSH.pdf

Nothing there on Houses.

The argument:

"There is at least one genuinely Dorothean example horoscope (Arabic Dorotheus 1.23.15 Dykes = Rhetorius 5.108.1) that uses whole-sign houses, and there are quite a few passages (e.g., Ar. Dor. 1.23.8 Dykes = Rhet. 5.106.1) where the word "sign" (Greek z??idion = Arabic burj) is used for "place" (= house). I think this is sufficient to confirm that Dorotheus used whole-sign houses."

is not sufficient to falsify the Thesis.

"There is not a single historical document from antiquity that provides historiographic evidence for the preferential and systematic use of whole-sign houses or justify the assumption of preferential use of a related whole-sign house system in ancient astrological practice."

- That is a good angle to take because that is the kind of evidence I have been looking for (and cannot find). Until we can, I think astrologers should not keep suggesting that this was the preferred approach, and be prepared to remove all weakly built assumptions.

Thanks DEB. - Do You know anything about the motives to push WSH so militantly? - Economics? - To aggrandize certain people? - Sales of books? - I find the whole affair bizarre? - Or is it just a psycho-pathological obsession? - Or just scientific flatroots?

re to

https://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=11942

where I posted:

Meine email-Korrespondenz mit Prof. Hübner im Februar 2023

Prof. Hübner hat den Artikel von Assistant Professor Dr. Martin Gansten als philologisch sauber und argumentativ plausibel bewertet.

https://brill.com/view/journals/ijdp/4/ ... html-copy1

Meine ursprüngliche Arbeitshypothese: ""Es gibt kein einziges historisches Dokument aus der Antike, das die Verwendung von Ganzzeichenhäusern geschichtswissenschaftlich belegt, weshalb es vertretbar ist, von der Nichtexistenz von Ganzzeichenhäusern in der antiken astrologischen Praxis auszugehen" fand er zu apodiktisch.
Er verwies auf Heph.1,1,3 und W. Hübner: Körper und Kosmos. Zur Ikonographie der zodiakalen Melothesie, Wiesbaden 2013 (Gratia. Tübinger Schriften zur Renaissanceforschung und Kulturwissenschaft. 49, hrsg. Joachim Knape, Reinhold F. Glei, Ulrich Pfisterer).
sowie
W. Hübner: Disiecti membra poetae. Neue Spuren des astrologischen Lehrdichters Dorotheos von Sidon, Stuttgart 2021 (Palingenesia. 127), besonders 21f. mit Tabelle.
sowie
W. Hübner: Raum, Zeit und soziales Rollenspiel der vier Kardinalpunkte in der antiken Katarchenhorokopie, München 2003 (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde. 194).
und
E. Cassirer: Die Begriffsform im mythischen Denken, Leipzig-Berlin 1922 (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg. 1; Ndr. in: Wesen und Wirkung des Symbolbegriffs, erste Auflage Darmstadt 1956; achte Auflage Darmstadt 1994=1998).
Und
E. Cassirer: Philosophie der symbolischen Formen II: Das mythische Denken, Berlin 1925 (sechste Auflage Darmstadt 1973).

Angesichts seiner Publikationen

Hübner, Die Dodekatropos des Manilius (Manil. 2, 856 - 970) (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur: Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse)

Manilius, "Astronomica" Buch V: Einführung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar (Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare (SWC))

gehe ich davon aus, daß er seine Maniliusarbeiten argumentativ herangezogen hätte, wenn es dort Anhaltspunkte für die Verwendung von Ganzzeichenhäusern durch Manilius gegeben hätte.

Seiner Kritik "zu apodiktisch" folgend vertrete ich ja seitdem:

„Es gibt kein einziges historisches Dokument aus der Antike, das die vorrangige und systematisch bevorzugte Verwendung von Ganzzeichenhäusern geschichtswissenschaftlich belegt oder die Annahme einer bevorzugten Verwendung eines diesbezüglichen Ganzzeichen-Häuser-System in der antiken astrologischen Praxis rechtfertigen würde“.

Hello Volker,

And welcome to Skyscript.

Regarding this:

volkerschendel wrote:Thanks DEB. - Do You know anything about the motives to push WSH so militantly? - Economics? - To aggrandize certain people? - Sales of books? - I find the whole affair bizarre? - Or is it just a psycho-pathological obsession? - Or just scientific flatroots?

As the moderator of the traditional forum, I made and hereby repeat my request that we move this debate from speculations and accusations regarding people's motivations to a purely factual discussion of the matter itself.

Your references to Prof. Hübner and other academic historians are a step in the right direction. As a matter of fact, I am currently reviewing Prof. Hübner's work and already considered contacting him myself insofar clarification of this or that aspect seems desirable.

I agree with you that he has much to say about house systems in Manilius and other representatives of Hellenistic style astrology. I will most likely post some such findings in due course.

Being German speakers, we are fortunate indeed to have easy access to the work of Wolfgang Hübner and other great scholars in the field of astrology's history.

However, please remember that this is an English speaking forum and that any information should be shared in that language.

Best,
Michael

Dear Michael,

"I made and hereby repeat my request that we move this debate from speculations and accusations regarding people's motivations to a purely factual discussion of the matter itself."

Agreed in principle. But not only from the point of view of social science it is of epistemological relevance how a possibly freely invented theory is put into the world and with which motives and interest backgrounds the corresponding advertisement (more maliciously formulated propaganda) for this new theory, which was labeled as a "scientific discovery", takes place.

In the European research landscape on the history of astrology - see for example the 1st Astra Worksop held in English

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... Nu5X6Acu61

and my question from minute 18 regarding WSH in the Q&A video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7J9JyYD6yM&t=60s

the WSH theory of Robert Schmidt has not found any agreement as far as I know.

With Robert Schmidt I found e.g. additionally interesting that he could not prove his finding that Eudoxos or a group around him had created the Hellenistic astrology as a system neither philologically nor historically. - I was particularly struck by the fact that he apparently had not noticed the relevant works of Prof. Dr. Peter Kingsley on Empedocles and Parmenides -

Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition

and

the first edition of "Reality" - (I think 2004?) - a shortcoming of an American researcher that raises questions.

Also, the facts addressed by Deborah Houlding in her Vimeo video are epistemologically significant -.

https://vimeo.com/765620082/7d6469fe5b

namely that only Robert Zoller came into the Hindsight project with knowledge of Traditional Astrology and apparently Robert Schmidt could only contribute philological expertise at the beginning and only learned astrology in the project. - Social backgrounds are sometimes relevant when it comes to assessing the quality of arguments. - Especially when the only expert leaves the project within the first project year.

On this occasion the question: What is the reception history of the Eudoxos topic in the American astrological community? - As far as I know, it did not find any resonance in Europe.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Michael Sternbach wrote:Hello Volker,

.....
Regarding this:

volkerschendel wrote:Thanks DEB. - Do You know anything about the motives to push WSH so militantly? - Economics? - To aggrandize certain people? - Sales of books? - I find the whole affair bizarre? - Or is it just a psycho-pathological obsession? - Or just scientific flatroots?

As the moderator of the traditional forum, I made and hereby repeat my request that we move this debate from speculations and accusations regarding people's motivations to a purely factual discussion of the matter itself.

........
Best,
Michael

As already confirmed, I agree in principle. - However, the cancel culture attempts against Deborah Houlding with regard to her fact-based Vimeo presentation

https://vimeo.com/765620082/7d6469fe5b

in the social media has brought to light such a subterranean level that this should be addressed, because in my opinion it allows conclusions to be drawn about the quality of the arguments on the professional level.

It could be relevant to dissect minute by minute the 6:43:03 video. -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01IFZSjAoP0

Unfortunately a task I do not have the time to do.

Hello DEB,

in Your vimeo presentation from Minute 33

https://vimeo.com/765620082/7d6469fe5b

You talk about Your book Project - Mark Rileys translation of Vettius Valens Book I - annotated.

Will this be available in 2023?

Hi Volker

I can say for confidence within 2023, yes. It is an 'almost finished' project, and has been in that state for quite a long time. I just need a breathing space from a series of tight deadlines I have surrounding me at the moment to review and tidy it up. So hopefully in the first half of 2023, but I have cleared a lot of commitments in the second half of the year specifically so I can complete and publish some lingering projects - time whizzes for me!

As for how the WS phenomenon took off with the power and strength it did, I don't think I have anything more I can add to what I have already put on the record. If you have seen my video, then that presents my own thoughts on that.

Regards
Deb

Hello DEB,

that's great.

As to the Eudoxos theory I found this in Wolfgang Hübner - Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike: Ihre Darstellung und Verwendung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Manilius (Sudhoffs Archiv. Beihefte) published 1982 = The Properties of the Signs of the Zodiac in Antiquity: Their Representation and Use with Special Reference to Manilius (Sudhoffs Archiv. Beihefte)

On Page 5: "He is probably the successor of Eudoxus, for whom a description of the Zodiac is hardly attested. His zodiac catalog(545-549) comprises only five verses, thus not even donating half a verse per zodiacal sign.."

In the 646 pages Volume we find a lot of information how the Properties of the Signs of the Zodiac in Antiquity developed - Eudoxos did not play any significant part in this.

So as Michael Sternbach correctly states - there is lot to be found in Hübner's research.