37
Zagata, do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source? The Bulgarian text you give is not a primary source. If al-Qaṣr??ni is the medieval authority you want to quote, then please quote him.

I have more practical experience of Indian charts than of Persian ones (though they are very similar in appearance), but let me say this about Indian manuscripts: the charts in them never include degrees of planets or houses, even when those are explicitly used in the interpretation. Degrees are given in separate tables or not at all. So to me, the absence of an element from a chart is a very weak argument, or rather no argument at all.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

38
Martin Gansten wrote:
Deb wrote:Show me the passages.
I second that, and would only add: in the original language, please, with or without translation into a modern language. We are talking about texts, after all; they should be quotable in writing.
Martin, it is nice to get the original language included, if possible, but I don't want to put barriers in front of anyone finding a passage in a translated work that is directly relevant.

For example, I could quote where Albiruni talks about the use of Alcabitius, which he refers to as the "standard" system - but only by giving the translated English passage from Ramsay-Wright. I wouldn't be able to present it here in its original language.

40
I flicked through that very quickly (as noted, I keep away from Brennan's stuff, but wanted to catch what I could of Rob). Given the circumstances, I felt Rob's response was restrained and fair enough. If everyone was as scholarly and well mannered as Rob Hand, everyone would be able to debate points more easily without people constantly using loaded phrases like "blames you".

PS - As I am on grandmother babysitting duty for the next 2 days, I won't be able to respond to any new posts quickly. I do have some more points to make myself, but need to find time to add them later.

One thing I want to stress about CB's latest interview with Rob Hand:

1) RH has a right to reply
2) I hold a different position to Rob Hand on this matter (this is no shock to Rob, he knows that, because he knows me). I regard him as a true gentleman, a magnificent scholar & without doubt one of the greatest astrologers of our generation

I have nothing bad to say about Robert Hand. I just disgree on this issue and it needs to be understood that Rob Hand is a leading advocate for claiming WS were the original system, and I am a leading advocate for saying they were not.

Edit - to add in the reminder from Wei, of how the position I am arguing against was propelled by the work of Rob Hand
Image
Last edited by Deb on Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

41
Deb said:
Would you mind telling us what those passages are saying in English please ? (this is an English language forum).
Yes, sure. Here it is:

“ABOUT INTERPRETING THE HOROSCOPE

Based on the treatise of Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh, found by Hendrich Rantzau, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein.
With commentaries by Valdemar Bezissar and supplemented by the opinions of various ancient and medieval astrologers.

1.

It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the methods of erecting a horoscope. There are several systems for calculating intermediate houses, and there is also no uniformity as to what constitutes a "main point" of the horoscope: Medium Coeli or Ascendant. Here is a brief overview of how the doctrine of the houses has evolved from ancient times to the present day (1547):

a. At first the signs of the zodiac were houses, with the "beginning" - the first house - being the sign where the rising point of the ecliptic - "horoscopos" or "ascendant" was located, and the following houses were located in the successively coming signs of the zodiac.

2.

There are many more different opinions about erecting the horoscope. This is especially characteristic of our time. Now, practically every author comes up with more or less witty ways. So, for example, many erect a horoscope according to Placidus, but divide half the distance between the cusps and get the cusps somewhere in the middle of the houses, while the houses remain of different size. But Andrussar, whose treatise is presented below, adheres to what was said in point 1.a.???


Martin said:
Zagata, do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source? The Bulgarian text you give is not a primary source. If al-Qaṣr??ni is the medieval authority you want to quote, then please quote him.

Yes, Martin, I happen to know the difference. It is just that I don't have the treatise. The translator and astrologer died decades ago. There is even a debate on my website about the identity of this Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh aka Doronius.

https://www.100percentastrology.com/fio ... astrology/

In a paper called RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN ABRAHAM IBN EZRA’S SEFER HA-OLAM, it is said on page 102 in footnote No. 160: "Andruzgar ben Zadi Faruk, a 9th century Persian Jewish astrologer. Very little is known of him". Yet this Andrusar could be a different astrologer.

Here is more proof. It comes from E.S. Kennedy and David Pingree's translation of the Astrological History of Masha'allah (1971) Harvard University Press. It contains 16 preserved horoscope charts.

The bibliographer ibn al-Nadim in his Fihrist, described Masha'allah "as virtuous and in his time a leader in the science of jurisprudence, i.e. the science of judgments of the stars".[5] He served as a court astrologer for the Abbasid Caliphate and wrote numerous works on astrology in Arabic. Some Latin translations survive.

Here is E.S. Kennedy and David Pingree's translation of horoscope 9 in chapter 2, page 55. Note: The Asc sign is on the top of the chart and its degree is marked as H. All the original 16 horoscopes are presented in chapter 1, but I can't distinguish which one is which as they did not use the astrological glyphs.

Image


So, it turns out that Masha'allah, just like Dorotheus and the Persian imperial astrologers, "forgot" to include the house cusps. He even did not include the MC degree. He must have been a "beginner", Osiris.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

42
Zagata wrote:Deb said:
Would you mind telling us what those passages are saying in English please ? (this is an English language forum).
Yes, sure. Here it is:

“ABOUT INTERPRETING THE HOROSCOPE

Based on the treatise of Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh, found by Hendrich Rantzau, Prince of Schleswig-Holstein.
With commentaries by Valdemar Bezissar and supplemented by the opinions of various ancient and medieval astrologers.

1.

It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the methods of erecting a horoscope. There are several systems for calculating intermediate houses, and there is also no uniformity as to what constitutes a "main point" of the horoscope: Medium Coeli or Ascendant. Here is a brief overview of how the doctrine of the houses has evolved from ancient times to the present day (1547):

a. At first the signs of the zodiac were houses, with the "beginning" - the first house - being the sign where the rising point of the ecliptic - "horoscopos" or "ascendant" was located, and the following houses were located in the successively coming signs of the zodiac.

2.

There are many more different opinions about erecting the horoscope. This is especially characteristic of our time. Now, practically every author comes up with more or less witty ways. So, for example, many erect a horoscope according to Placidus, but divide half the distance between the cusps and get the cusps somewhere in the middle of the houses, while the houses remain of different size. But Andrussar, whose treatise is presented below, adheres to what was said in point 1.a.???


Martin said:
Zagata, do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source? The Bulgarian text you give is not a primary source. If al-Qaṣr??ni is the medieval authority you want to quote, then please quote him.

Yes, Martin, I happen to know the difference. It is just that I don't have the treatise. The translator and astrologer died decades ago. There is even a debate on my website about the identity of this Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh aka Doronius.

https://www.100percentastrology.com/fio ... astrology/

In a paper called RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN ABRAHAM IBN EZRA’S SEFER HA-OLAM, it is said on page 102 in footnote No. 160: "Andruzgar ben Zadi Faruk, a 9th century Persian Jewish astrologer. Very little is known of him". Yet this Andrusar could be a different astrologer.

Here is more proof. It comes from E.S. Kennedy and David Pingree's translation of the Astrological History of Masha'allah (1971) Harvard University Press. It contains 16 preserved horoscope charts.

The bibliographer ibn al-Nadim in his Fihrist, described Masha'allah "as virtuous and in his time a leader in the science of jurisprudence, i.e. the science of judgments of the stars".[5] He served as a court astrologer for the Abbasid Caliphate and wrote numerous works on astrology in Arabic. Some Latin translations survive.

Here is E.S. Kennedy and David Pingree's translation of horoscope 9 in chapter 2, page 55. Note: The Asc sign is on the top of the chart and its degree is marked as H. All the original 16 horoscopes are presented in chapter 1, but I can't distinguish which one is which as they did not use the astrological glyphs.

Image


So, it turns out that Masha'allah, just like Dorotheus and the Persian imperial astrologers, "forgot" to include the house cusps. He even did not include the MC degree. He must have been a "beginner", Osiris.
Yes but Maternus is much earlier than the arabs. And once again those charts without degrees were meant to be simple and for beginners as Maternus said. Big difference

44
For all practical matters...
"Knowing what's right doesn't mean much unless you do what's right" (Roosevelt)
You go on the road and you see 'Abercrombie 15 miles'
This is Whole sign houses.
15 miles later, 'Abercrombie'
This is Quadrant houses with the degrees.
Who is right and who is wrong?

You may be able to explain something from the chart from Whole sign houses... if you do what's right.
But in all practical matters, many astrologers shall be able to explain when Jupiter or Saturn hits an intermediate House cusp that something relevant to that house happens in their life.
Something Whole sign cannot do.
Don't you find it strange that Whole sign list the AS and MC separately in the chart. Why not do it with intermediate House cusps... or cast a Quadrant House system chart altogether.

In the end, whatever view you adopt, it must be rooted for a purpose.
And if you say Koch is better, no problem, show me how it works.
The guy living at the Equator can argue that Equal house system is the only one working... and he is right!
"When I am right, I get angry. Churchill gets angry when he is wrong. We are angry at each other much of the time." (Charles de Gaulle)

There is a pie in the middle of the table and everyone disagrees on how many parts it should be sliced.
No problem. How many are we here? To be fair, there should be a slice for every one of us.
"The majority is never right, unless it includes me." (Ashleigh Brilliant)
:D
Blessings!

45
I think the point that keeps being missed, and that both Deb and I have made (separately and in our different ways), is that using whole-sign houses is one thing and prescribing them (the way some astrologers do today) is another. Nobody is denying the use; what people are disagreeing on is the reasons why they were used.* So simply piling up examples of use is not going to make a difference.

If someone misses that point, I can understand their frustration when I and others remain unaffected by their lists of 'evidence' (leading to accusations of 'denialism'). But I really don't know how to make the point any more clearly than I have done already, so as to help people understand it better.

* (One reason recently alluded to by Ed, I think, is imprecise times. If you have only an approximate time, calculating exact degrees for the ascendant and other cusps by hand is a waste of time. To this I want to add something from my practical experience: if you cast a lot of charts for the same location/region, after a while you will know where the MC and other quadrant cusps fall as soon as you know the ascendant, since that relationship doesn't change.)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

46
It must be obvious to all that I totally support Martin Gansten's views - as perfectly expressed in his paper. However, it doesn't help this exploration for anyone to make jibes on the back of that carefully explored issue, to suggest that the use of WS, past or present, only befits a beginner. So can we have no more of that, and keep this discussion respectful to all?

Zagata,
I am very interested in your passage. Thank you for taking the trouble to lay it out here. My interest is in finding passages where the use of signs for houses is treated as a "method" in the sources that have fed into what we generally refer to as the 'western tradition'.*
While this doesn't show an ancient definition, or evidence of someone recommending or showing a preference for this approach, if this text is dated to 1572 (do I have that right?) then it does, at least, show an historical definition of note. I am struggling to understand the source details of the text, because I don't have a lot of time today. Any clarification on who wrote the 1572 commentary, and where, would be greatly appreciated.

* I know the 'western tradition' was 'western in origin, of course. I am also interested in other systems too, but it seems to me that there is a whole lot more assumption and speculation, and much less careful research of this matter in those sources, so far.


Martin - this is a very good point and hope it doesn't get easily overlooked:
If you have only an approximate time, calculating exact degrees for the ascendant and other cusps by hand is a waste of time. To this I want to add something from my practical experience: if you cast a lot of charts for the same location/region, after a while you will know where the MC and other quadrant cusps fall as soon as you know the ascendant, since that relationship doesn't change

47
You are welcome, Deb. The text is a treatise by Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh aka Doronius, who could also possibly be Andruzgar ben Zadi Faruk, a 9th century Persian Jewish astrologer. His treatise was found by Hendrich Rantzau (1526-1598), Count of Schleswig-Holstein. James Holden writes in his Biographical History of Western Astrology on page 602 that Rantzau was a Danish scholar, statesman and astrologer, governor of Holtstein 1566-1598, art collector and a possessor of a famous library of 7,000 volumes.
The text in the Bulgarian book says 1547, so Rantzau must have added his input in the very first page of the treatise by Andrusar-Ibn-Zabi-Al-Farrukh aka Doronius.

Martin said:
I think the point that keeps being missed, and that both Deb and I have made (separately and in our different ways), is that using whole-sign houses is one thing and prescribing them (the way some astrologers do today) is another. Nobody is denying the use; what people are disagreeing on is the reasons why they were used.* So simply piling up examples of use is not going to make a difference.
If someone misses that point, I can understand their frustration when I and others remain unaffected by their lists of 'evidence' (leading to accusations of 'denialism'). But I really don't know how to make the point any more clearly than I have done already, so as to help people understand it better. [/quote]

What are you talking about, Martin? Deborah said in her video that no historical astrologer defined, discussed, recommended or said that he was using whole sign houses. Have you even watched her video?

I have presented textual evidence, I have presented chart evidence. You are yet to refute any of it but attempt to quibble about it.

Here is the contents of Sahl's translation by Ben Dykes. It is much easier on the eyes for people to see that the description of the houses is in the whole sign houses system.

Image


Image


Source:

https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-Sahl-Bishr-Principles-Nativities/dp/193458648X/ref=sr_1_1?

Mark said:
James Holden argued the 4th century AD astrologer Paul of Alexandria (Paulus Alexandrinus) was using whole sign houses (what he terms the sign house system). Perhaps that would be a useful text to explore further?


Thank you, Mark for mentioning this.

Robert Hand in his interview last night with Chris Brennan also said the same and wrote it in his editor's introduction of Paulus back in 1993. Hand also said the Arabic Dorotheus is using whole sign houses. Also, he said that Masha'allah on Reception which he translated is also whole sign houses. Robert Hand said that he did not invent the whole sign house system but actually first heard of whole sign houses in the early 70s at a conference by famous Indian astrologer B. V. Raman. Robert Hand also said that whole sign houses is actually the most widely used house system in the world because of the population of India and astrologers there using it.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

48
I have been reading and watching how the debate has unfold, without so far entering into this debate, even though I am one of the active online members of the traditional astrological society. I will not go into the same way of the debate by giving quotes and authors, because most of the things are already given and yes I have read most of these material- books, publications and etc. And people who know me, know that I have the very much good theoretical training, for my practise I will not speak, let others.
Probably one of these reasons for not going into this debate in the same way - is that I knew very well both of the sides of the story, my first teacher Dimitar Kozhuharov works with whole-signs, my second teacher Deborah Houlding works with quadrant system.
Did my first teacher make me with a directive to use his system - no, he gave me the required books and information and his knowledge so me in my way to understand and work the astrology the way I view it. Did Deborah Houlding make me not using whole-signs, no she has not. And in that way of learning my approach is simple - I work only with quadrant system for Horary and both quadrant and whole sign in natal and predictive techniques.
So why this can't be applied today to astrology and let everyone works with both of the systems? Because one thing is for sure - both system were used in traditional astrology. But for what point - here can be a debate, but a debate, not an extreme opinion that there is only whole-sign and if you are not using whole-sign you are not a traditional astrologer and virce versa. Because yes Deborah was triggered by this extremes - the sayings often heard" the traditional astrology works only with whole-sign", she might have reacted somewhat emotionally, but the other side reacted the same way - I just hear Rob Hand yelling "this is all bulshit". We do not need this.
And that is why I think both extremes are not okay in this way. What for sure works for me and the Gauquelin astrology tests confirmed that the most active things are the angles - ASC, MC mostly. There is where the activity happens. You have angular Jupiter - boom , you are a judge. Sometimes it is as simple as that.
So if the both extremes are not okay - why don't this debate unfold into - when and how both system are used. And let this debate go into practical terms. Because that for me is the most important and key moment in here - we have succesful astrologers working with only whole-sign and successful with only quadrant. And these are again facts, whether we like it or not.
So let this debabe goes further and sees if and how both system whole-sign and quadrant can work together in one chart reading. How they can add more information and more value and work in synergy, without each side dismissing the others right to be used.