Petr,

I am not sure that I understand your intentions perfectly, but in the passage we are discussing, Ptolemy defines the first house as beginning 5 degrees above the eastern horizon and extending 25 degrees below it. This is not the case when you use whole-sign houses (except when the 6th degree happens to be rising!).

Alternative question is whether determinant is position planets or its aspect?

A western hyleg may encounter the aspect of a planet located in the Asc, but not an aspect located in the Asc, so the determining position must be that of the planet.

Third question is,what understand by "the horary parts of the aspects the apheta encounters during its trip towards its setting".

Horary parts is another term for horary/hourly times, which (as you say) are 1/6 of a planet's DSA or NSA.

Martin,

I?ve similar verdict.Questions I?m put for get the opinion of others,because taken results there?e not confortable with AB.

Sun HT=20,703 PP=0,0954885 1d59m
Mercury HT=20,802 PP=0,069 1d26m
Mars HT=17,450 PP=0,273558 -4d46m
Venus HT=10,533 PP=0,25508 2d41m
Saturn HT=19,954 PP=0,839 -16d45m
Luna HT=17,999 PP=0,74893 13d29m

sum= -1d56m + 42d25m = 40d29m

It ours returns on the question of selection Hyleg.If use procedure after Ptolemy,is Sun in 7.house and by meet the qualification Hyleg(therefore the consideration whole-sign-8.house).In this case setting time Sun is
23d39m

Mercury 1d26m
Mars -4d46m
Luna 13d29m

sum= 10d9m + 23d29m = 33d48m

Petr wrote:
It ours returns on the question of selection Hyleg.If use procedure after Ptolemy,is Sun in 7.house and by meet the qualification Hyleg(therefore the consideration whole-sign-8.house).In this case setting time Sun is
23d39m

Mercury 1d26m
Mars -4d46m
Luna 13d29m

sum= 10d9m + 23d29m = 33d48m

Hello!
Now I've not time to follow the thread and make calculations again, still according Barone hyleg is not the Sun, is the Part of Fortune, which he puts at 6 Leo.

Hi Gjiada,

Alessandro Barone at determination Hyleg used perhaps system Abu Ali or Bonatti.Because is Sun in female sign and quadrant is disqualified.Of next text to Alchochoden is evident,that the calculation longitude PF is 5?2',it matches time 7:52:50 PM.Further already it is impossible go,because would apply also Jupiter(5?5').By but will change Hyleg setting time.After coming-out for Hyleg PF 39d39m.Only difeference,where would may be answer,is whether AB except PP otherwise.

Petr

Final analysis according to Ptolemy(Hyleg Sun,time 18.45 GMT):

setting time Sun is 23d24m

con Mercury 1d25m
antiscium Mercury 1d25m
sex Mars -5d40m
trig Luna 15d35m

sum= 12d45m + 23d24m = 36d9m = 36y1m25d

Princess Diana death 31.8.1977 = 36y2m

Quote:
'the twelfth part [Ptolemy's usual synonym for 'zodiacal sign'] surrounding the ascendant, from five degrees above the actual horizon up to the twenty-five degrees that remain, which are rising in succession to the horizon; the part sextile dexter to these 30 degrees, called that of the Good Daemon; the part in square, the mid-heaven above the earth; the part in trine, called that of the God [?]'

This is Robbins's translation, which I have altered slightly to make it more literal. Dividing the zodiac into 30? segments based on the rising degree is what we call equal houses, not Porphyry or whole-sign.

The problem is that we don't know for sure what Ptolemy actually said. At least that's Robert Hand's conclusion. He points out that in one section of Ptolemy he refers to siblings but not as a "house" the way we understand that term, but rather as a sign (zoidon). Hand tells us this demonstrates that Ptolemy used whole sign houses. See the text for a complete explanation. He follows this up with Martin's quote, then after giving the original Greek which I cannot reproduce here he writes:

Kai tas tautais tais 30 moirais dexias hexagonous (te) tas) (tais) (tous) tou agathou daimonos ...

The words that are in parenthesis in the Greek are the critical ones. Each one is an alternative to the others according to Boer who edited the Tuebner edition of the Tetrabiblos. Robbins favored the te, and Boer the tas. But the upshot of all these is that it is up to the choice of the editor of the Greek to interpret exactly what Ptolemy was saying here. There are two basic choices: 1) One set of interpretations states that the 30 degrees which are in a right hexagon (sextile) to the ones around the Ascendant also known as the "Good Daimon" or the 11th topos or place. 2) The other possible set of interpretations says that the degrees in question must be among those 30 degrees which are in the right hexagon and which are also in the 11th place (i.e. 11th sign from the ascending sign). Thanks to the textual confusion we do not know from the Greek whether these degrees constitute the 11th place (which favors the equal house interpretation), or whether the degrees in question have to be both in the 11th topos and in sextile as well to the degrees around the Ascendant (which favors the whole sign interpretations).

And finally what we have here is Ptolemy is not a description of a house system, but a description of places ..." Whole Sign Houses page 11

The point is that a critical part of Ptolemy is unclear and what we have is "editor's choice." For the full explanation see Rob Hand's pamphlet, Whole Sign Houses The Oldest House System, ARHAT.

Tom

Hi Tom (& all)

I agree that there is a lot of ambiguity in the references to signs, places and houses, and I have also argued that there is not enough evidence in Ptolemy?s explanation and practical use of houses to know exactly what he was doing. Personally I?ve always felt that we should give more weight to Porphyry?s explanation than anything written by a modern author, but that would not allow us to judge purely on what is written in the text. If we do stick strictly to the text as transmitted by reproductions of the manuscripts and the ?paraphrase?, then I have to agree with Martin ? there are several passages that only make sense if we consider an equal-house approach, and this is definitely not the same as the sign=house approach (as Petr seemed to imply earlier). In fact, it is an argument against it.

In the passage you quoted above we have the text: ?'the twelfth part [Ptolemy's usual synonym for 'zodiacal sign'] surrounding the ascendant,?

The bracketed insert seems misleading here, because where this comment occurs (Tet., III.10) Ptolemy is clearly identifying 5 of the 12 parts (or places/houses) of heaven - we know that this reference is not being used as a synonym for a sign in this instance. This is one of the clearest references to the use of houses in Ptolemy?s text ? not only does he describe the position of these five houses, but he also uses names (orient, midheaven, house of the Good Daemon, House of God) and tells us their order of strength: 10th, 1st, 11th, 7th and then 9th. This is important because the meaning of the houses is largely dependent upon their ability to give or take away the planets? power of expression.

Within this one clear section, where Ptolemy takes so much trouble to specifically identify the position and extent of the houses, we surely cannot easily overlook the description of the first house as being ?from five degrees above the actual horizon up to the twenty-five degrees that remain?.
We might assume that Ptolemy was taking a ?general approach? in the expectation that a house would equal 30 degrees, as many classical authors seem to do, (and I can certainly accept that), but if we are looking for clear meaning using only the textual evidence before us, then this passage speaks for itself.

Further doubts are cleared when the rest of that chapter is read in detail. There are several places where Ptolemy gives speculative examples on how to calculate the length of life and amongst these examples we find comments such as:

?Assume first that the beginning of Aries is rising, so that the beginning of Capricorn is at midheaven?

?In the same way, let the beginning of Aries be setting, so that the beginning of Cancer may be at midheaven and the beginning of Gemini may be removed from the midheaven above the earth in the direction of the leading signs ??

It is hard to deny that an equal house perspective is being taken here ? this is certainly not a whole sign approach.

That is as far as the text goes, but otherwise I reserve my opinion, because I believe that classical astrologers often demonstrated a simplified approach in generalities and to elucidate other points, but that they would be careful to calculate by degree when there was a necessity for precision.

Rob Hand has done great work, but I?ve noticed lately that a lot of astrologers are circulating references to whole sign being ?the oldest house system? as if this is now a proven fact. I think the case that whole sign was the oldest, or that it was ever intended to be a ?system? rather than a convenience is far from proven. I am wary of astrologers being too quick to close down important avenues of research by filling blanks with convenient assumptions. Against this view we have to remember that even Valens ? who is usually used to seal the whole sign argument - included reminders of the need to calculate by degree for precision work, and explained how the midheaven (as the 10th house) could span across two signs. Read his book III chapter 2 where he gives a very clear explanation of quadrant division, explaining that sometimes the ascendant and midheaven have more than 30 degrees and sometimes fewer. I have not been convinced that even Valens uses whole sign as a ?system?, let alone Ptolemy. Valens attributes this system to Orion, who has so far not been identified. So how old are quadrant systems ? - as yet we just don't know.

Regards
Deb

PS - Petr, your calculation for Princess Diana seems very neat.

Rob Hand has done great work, but I?ve noticed lately that a lot of astrologers are circulating references to whole sign being ?the oldest house system? as if this is now a proven fact. I think the case that whole sign was the oldest, or that it was ever intended to be a ?system? rather than a convenience is far from proven.

I agree. I re-read the pamphlet a couple of days ago, and I was surprised to see (this time) that despite Hand's insistence that the Whole Sign system was exclusively used before Ptolemy, that he didn't really cite any evidence to support that claim. He relies on language to make his claim - and that isn't a bad way to go, if its all we have. He does point out the ambiguity in Ptolemy, and notes how it is interpreted is up to the editor. That by itself leaves the issue unproven one way or the other. However, if others used whole signs exclusively prior to Ptolemy, that argues for the system being the oldest and for its being used as a system. Assertions and documentation are different.

Still the idea that ancient astrologers would use a whole sign system makes sense. Why divide the ecliptic up any more than necessary, or introduce dividing up the equator when we can use the signs and get to work?

I read, somewhere, that Hand was updating this booklet. I hope he fills it in considerably, as it is one of my favorites. There is a lot of good astrology in its pages.

Tom

In the passage you quoted above we have the text: ?'the twelfth part [Ptolemy's usual synonym for 'zodiacal sign'] surrounding the ascendant,?

The bracketed insert seems misleading here, because where this comment occurs (Tet., III.10) Ptolemy is clearly identifying 5 of the 12 parts (or places/houses) of heaven - we know that this reference is not being used as a synonym for a sign in this instance.

As I was responsible for the bracketed text, let me clarify that I did not necessarily mean whole signs. Ptolemy does use 'twelfth part' as a synonym of 'sign' (z?idion) quite consistently (as far as I have seen), but we should also note that he and other ancient authors not infrequently use 'sign' to mean 'distance of 30 degrees'. For instance, a planet in 20? Leo may be said to be two and a half signs away from one in 5? Gemini. (I made this example up, as I haven't the time to go through any texts at the moment; but the form of expression is not uncommon.) So I think Ptolemy here means 'twelfth' in the sense of a thirty-degree section of the zodiac.

That is as far as the text goes, but otherwise I reserve my opinion, because I believe that classical astrologers often demonstrated a simplified approach in generalities and to elucidate other points, but that they would be careful to calculate by degree when there was a necessity for precision. [...] I think the case that whole sign was the oldest, or that it was ever intended to be a ?system? rather than a convenience is far from proven.

I agree. A lot of early astrology seems to have been very slapdash by modern standards, and I am sure whole-signs houses were used much or most of the time, but more precise forms of calculation do seem to have existed alongside the rough-and-ready methods quite early on. (Incidentally, the same goes for present-day Indian astrology.)

steven wrote:Deb quoted Ptolemy:

?Assume first that the beginning of Aries is rising, so that the beginning of Capricorn is at midheaven?

?In the same way, let the beginning of Aries be setting, so that the beginning of Cancer may be at midheaven and the beginning of Gemini may be removed from the midheaven above the earth in the direction of the leading signs ??

Needless to say, I must really point out that "the beginning of Aries" is 0 Aries. The "beginning of Cancer" is 0 Cancer. The "beginning of Gemini" is 0 Gemini! The only equal division in his words is that of whole sign!

I can see the logic of your arggument But one of the hallmarks of Ptolemy?s work is that he does refer to specific degrees when he talks about the orient, occident and midheaven. In the next paragraph of that example he tells us to assume that the beginning of Aries is not on the angle and that the 18th degree of Taurus is on the midheaven. There are other passages where Ptolemy appears to define the midheaven and the ascendant as the specific degrees, and the associated parts/houses as the 12th-part that is succeeding to this degree. As Martin says, what we might translate as sign, we might also translate as house (and vice versa). But whichever way we look at this it is thorny issue, so I don?t want to add to any misinformation and leave the impression that I *know* exactly what was intended here! (The point of my earlier post was only to say that if I had to pick a system based purely on the available text, I would have to say equal and I do not see how anyone can claim that the whole sign argument is proven in this text).

But I am very much in agreement with Steven generally, especially in the belief that too much is made of ambiguous references that are not capable of being proven one way or another. I sometimes wonder what Ptolemy would have made of these kinds of discussions ? and whether he was actually like Kepler and didn?t care much for the houses ? whichever way they were divided! In order to understand a technique it surely makes more sense to refer to sources which were clear and unambiguous. That is why I am more persuaded by the references found in contemporary works. A definition of the houses as given by Antiochus, for example, suggests that even if the references discussed above do suggest equal house division, there was more to the system than might meet the eye in Ptolemy?s work:

Each of these 12 places obtains as its lot the 5 pre-ascended degrees and the 25 post-ascending degrees, if the squares [ie, the angles] should occur through ninety degrees. But if they should occur with different numbers of degrees, divide the degrees of the square numbers equally into three parts, and you would know how many degrees each place of the zodiac has. (The Thesaurus, ch.46).

With regard to the use of whole-sign alongside quadrant division ? it makes perfect sense to me that in an age where accurate time was a rarity, where there were no computers to quickly refer to, and where tables were expensive and rounded up, a rough and ready approach was all that made sense in many situations, but that this would be employed alongside a more theoretically precise approach for important calculations. One thing that strikes me is that there are many reminders of the need to calculate by degree to be correct, and to not rely upon signs equating to houses, but there is not one ancient authority reminding us that the correct approach is to simply associate the places with the signs. In other words, no ancient astrologer gives instruction on how to divide the houses by the whole sign method, as many modern astrologers are now doing, (and so leaving the impression that this was always the theoretically correct thing to do).

Well I agree (of course!), but at the same time let?s not underestimate the reality of practical convenience. For example, when modern astrologers are taught chart calculation they are expected to correct the planetary positions to the minute, but we only have to go back to the 17th century to see a very different approach. Where Lilly teaches chart calculation in Christian Astrology, he tells the student that the noon position of the planets will suffice for most situations, so long as we remember to correct the Moon?s position by adding 3? for each 6 hours that passes. So a job that a modern astrologer might expect to take a fair bit of time can actually be done in about 30 seconds. It?s a tradesman?s cheat, but it makes a lot of sense in those situations where the judgement won?t benefit from more precision, and where the hour of birth may be a ?guestimate? anyway. This is a workable thing to do in most situations, so long as we remember that there are some occasions when we need to take more trouble and do the job properly. I am not taking anything away from the point you made or denying that whole-sign can be valid, but it also seems to me that the classical ?reminders? about calculating by degree ought to be seen in this sort of context too. At least I think we ought to remain wary of this being a relevant consideration, because we so easily lose sight of the practicalities of early chart construction now that all we have to do is moan about the computer crashing

I'm not an expert about house domification and maths makes me crazy, but I believe that many Renaissance astrologers followers of Ptolemy used what is in fact called Placidus method.

But it was very old if it is quoted by IbnEzra in Liber de rationibus tabularum:

"Secundum hoc differentia que est a principio 10me domus ad principium 11me in tabula circuli recti, erit duarum horarum temporalium secundum horas temporales gradus principii 11me, 2. et erit differentia ascensionum inventarum ante principium 11me ad ascensiones orientis in tabula terre, tamquam 4 hore temporales secundum gradum principium 11me".

In a few words every house is 2 hours, so Ibn Ezra says the difference between the tenth house and 11th is 2 hours and from the 11th to the East are 4 hours.

But they don't quote Tetrabiblos as reference, they quote Almagest.

Margherita