85
Zagata wrote:Unless you can provide an example of profections with intermediate house cusps, you cannot claim that Valens was profecting with quadrant houses.

Following your logic, the fact that Sahl shows the Asc and MC degree would make him use quadrant houses for interpretation, even when no intermediate house cusps are given.
I do think that using the MC and IC amounts to using quadrant houses, whether or not all the intermediate cusps are explicitly given. When Valens says that the ascendant, natally in Virgo, had reached the MC in Taurus in the native's 34th year, what was he counting if not quadrant houses?

I have not so far seen anything in ancient or medieval texts to support the idea, so often repeated today, about the MC being a 'sensitive point' that 'floats' across the houses. Like the distinction between 'topical' and 'dynamic' houses, I think it's a massive red herring.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

87
Zagata wrote:I have a question for you. How did Valens use zodiacal releasing from the Lot of Fortune or Lot of Spirit with a quadrant house system?
I have no opinions at all on the parts on Valens' text that deal with that technique, as I haven't studied them. If there are particular places to which you would like to direct my attention, feel free to do so (with references to Pingree's edition, please). I probably shan't have time to look closely at them before the end of next month, though, as I am in an extremely work-intensive period right now.

I will just say in a general way that it is of course perfectly possible for someone to use quadrant houses with respect to the ascendant (the actual positions of planets in the sky) and sign-based, symbolic houses for other points, such as a Lot. This is frequently seen in India, where secondary houses are reckoned by sign from the moon (and sometimes from the sun).
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

About Placidus Houses

88
Hello Deb,

I have looked in Hiéroz's book I mentioned for the source I wrote Hieroz quoted. He claims that _Scaliger_ ("some 150 years before Placidus"), commenting Manilius, casts a chart using temporal hours, according "secundum vetustissum modum per sectionnes arcus semidiurni et seminocturni", which Hiéroz concludes to be Placidus House system [*]. Although off topics, perhaps, I hope it brings something fresh in the discussion ;-)

Interestingly, this discussion lead to another one, I think... If earlier astrologers paid attention to the degrees of the house cusps, when did the orbs of the planets were introduced? As I thought places were by whole sign houses, I also believed planets add no orbs and aspects were also calculated by whole signs...

Best regards,
François

[*] Hiéroz, Jean. L'astrologie selon Morin de Villefranche quelques autres et moi-même, Paris, éditions Omnium littéraire, 1962, p. 32.

Scaliger's quote was probably written around 1600 according Hiéroz who, however, does not tell where he comes from and his text implies that Ptolemae used it, "theorically, at least"!... According to J. H. Holden, in his History of Horoscopic Astrology, p. 25 note 48 (2nd ed., 2006), he had the last edition of his Commentary in 1655 in Strasburg.

According to Wilhelm Knappich, in the french translation of his "Geschischte der Astrologie" (Vittorio Klostermann, 1967), p. 217, Joseph Juste Scaliger was born in 1540 in Agen, left France when he converted to the Protestant Church. He taught in Geneva, then went to Leyde and died there in 1609. The first edition of his Commentary seems to have been written around 1579, according to Knappich.

Knappich, Wilhelm. Histoire de l'astrologie, Vernal/Philippe Lebaud, éditions du Félin, 1986, p. 217.
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE

89
hi

Its funny that Brennan talked about the chart of a grammarian in Rhetorius when he discussed house systems.
That chart is more evidence for quadrant houses.
He had Saturn in 4th sign but cadent by quadrant and his 1st 3rd of life was full of hardship.Apparently Brennan didnt notice that.

90
Martin Gansten wrote:
Zagata wrote:Unless you can provide an example of profections with intermediate house cusps, you cannot claim that Valens was profecting with quadrant houses.

Following your logic, the fact that Sahl shows the Asc and MC degree would make him use quadrant houses for interpretation, even when no intermediate house cusps are given.
I do think that using the MC and IC amounts to using quadrant houses, whether or not all the intermediate cusps are explicitly given. When Valens says that the ascendant, natally in Virgo, had reached the MC in Taurus in the native's 34th year, what was he counting if not quadrant houses?

I have not so far seen anything in ancient or medieval texts to support the idea, so often repeated today, about the MC being a 'sensitive point' that 'floats' across the houses. Like the distinction between 'topical' and 'dynamic' houses, I think it's a massive red herring.
Valens Book IV, chapter 11, p. 79 in Riley:

“The operative and effective signs are the Ascendant, MC, <the> Good Daimon, <the> Good Fortune, the Lot of Fortune, Daimon, Love, Necessity. Signs of moderate activity are <the> the God, <the> the Goddess, and the other two angles. The rest of the signs are mediocre or bad.???

Chapter 12, p. 80 in Riley:

Each Place acts in the way specified, and the nature of the Place in opposition also acts cooperatively. When the transmission of the year has been found, we examine the Place where the transmitter is found and the Place where the receiver is found (using the twelve-Place system described above and the properties of the sign and the Place).???

Book 5, chapter 6, p.105 in Riley:

In short, if we calculate the Places and the distances between stars by degree <not>, we will not go astray.

Robert Schmidt translates this as:

“Whence if we examine the places or the intervals to the degree, we will not make a false step.???

Valens gives this in the middle of the chapter in Book 5, after initially presenting the method in Book IV and not mentioning the MC and IC degree. This is further proof for whole sign houses being his method, even more so in light of the above quotes where time after time he only says “zoidion/sign??? or “place???.

Further, Valens mentions only the MC/IC and not any of the 8 intermediate house cusps. Your argument covers 2 out of 8 with clear whole sign houses in all examples. That is 25%.

Valens was not profecting by quadrant houses. There are no intercepted houses in the profections. In the example with the 34th year, it is the angles that are active and that is why he does this and it is possible to profect in a 10th place year from the Moon in the IC 3rd in Sco to the Asc and Mars in Vir and from the Asc and Mars in Vir to the MC in Tau, the 9th.

Unless you can show Valens using intermediate quadrant house cusps, or cases where a planet (without an angle being involved) hands over to another planet with quadrant houses, your argument is untenable. For example: in a handing over by 9 signs, say a planet in the 11th sign instead of handing over to a planet in the 7th, hands over to a planet in the 6th or the 8th due to quadrant houses. Provide at least 1 such example if you can.

Concerning the floating MC, this is mentioned by a Hellenistic or Perso-Arabic source. I can't remember the author/s right now, but all of them say the same thing: it is better for the MC to fall in the 11th sign than in the 9th, because the former is advancing and the latter is declining. I will look for the source and quote it as reference.

Concerning zodiacal releasing in Valens, it is book 4, chapter 4. Riley translates it as "The Distribution of the Chronocratorships Starting with the Lot of Fortune and with Daimon." I don't know the page in Pingree and as I have said, I don''t know ancient Greek.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

91
Orisis wrote: the Max Duval bookon domification is a scan from the 80s print edition, turn to page 47, he mentions Albert Negre who introduced his use of the zodiac as houses in a 1950 article in the famous magazine "les cahiers astrologiques" from Alexandre Volguine. so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.
Ok, so for the benefit of those who don't speak French let me address this properly, but forgive my translations, I'm horrible at all languages, modern or ancient.

So here's what Max Duval reports of Albert Negre's proposition:
(Max Duval, La Domification et Les Transits, 1987, p.47)


Fin 1950, Albert Nègre proposait sa « domification zodiacale ». L’étude de nombreux thèmes lui apporta la preuve qu’elle était très probablement la seule vraie, — se demandant s’il n’avait pas retrouvé la domification des Anciens. C’est encore une variante du Modus Aequalis dont le principe reste simple : le signe zodiacal où se place le Point Ascendant est la maison I, — le signe suivant la maison II, etc. L’inventeur termine ainsi sa présentation : « L’expérience m’ayant indubitablement prouvé que la domification zodiacale permet d’interpréter aisément là où les autres domifications échouent, j’estime qu’elle est la vraie méthode, et la seule applicable à tous les thèmes ». On allait le dire.

At the end of 1950, Albert Nègre proposed his "zodiacal house-system". The study of numerous charts provided him the proof that it was very probably the sole true one - wondering if he hadn't rediscovered the house-system of the Ancients. It is another variant of the Equal House system of which the principle remains simple: the zodiacal sign where where the Ascendant Degree is placed is House 1 - the following sign House 2, etc. The inventer ends his presentation thusly: "The experience having undoubtedly proven to me that the zodiacal house-system allows me to interpret with ease where other house-systems fail, I believe that this is the one true method, and the only one applicable to all charts". We were going to say the same thing.
(For simplicity, I've translated 'domification' as house system but am keen to avoid any hair-splitting about what a system means etc.)


Now this is what Albert Nègre had said of this system, which Max Duval was quoting from:
(Albert Nègre, La Domification Zodiacale, Les Cahiers Astrologique, No. 29, 1950)

Après avoir moi-même utilisé Placidus, Régiomontanus Campanus, et enfin le « modus æqua- lis », je désespérais de trouver une domification parfaite, lorsque l'idée me vint de supprimer les maisons terrestres pour les remplacer par les seuls signes du zodiaque auxquels je conférai le titre de Maisons. Les premiers résultats que j'obtins avec cette méthode me surprirent par leur exactitude. Je me mis donc à étudier de nombreux thèmes qui tous m'apportèrent la preuve que la domification que j'employais était très probablement la seule vraie. Avais-je retrouvé la domification des anciens? Je l'ignore. En tout cas, la nombreuse littérature astrologique dont j'ai pu disposer ne m'ayant révélé aucune trace d'une méthode identique ou seulement approchante, je crois être le premier à l'exposer et, comme elle n'a pas de nom, je lui en donnerai un; je l'appellerai Domification Zodiacale (en abrégé D.Z.).

After having myself used Placidus, Regiomontanus, Campanus and finally the Equal House system, I was desperate to find a perfect house-system, when the idea occurred to me to to remove the terrestrial houses and to replace them by the zodiac signs alone to which I bestowed the title of Houses. The first results I obtained with this method surprised me with their accuracy. I set myself therefore to study numerous charts which all brought to me the proof that the house-system I was employing was very probably the sole true one. Had I rediscovered the house-system of the ancients? I do not know. In any case, the numerous astrological written works which I had at my disposal not having revealed any trace of an identical method or anything close to it, I think to be the first to reveal it, and, as it has no name, I will give one to it: I will call it the Zodiacal House-System.
So as far as I can see it, we can summise a couple of things from it:
In 1950 French astrologers were not talking about WSH.
It was *so* unheard of that Albert Negre thought he was inventing it.
By the mid-late 80s, at least one other french astrologer heard of the system, and recommended its usage.


If you continue reading Negre's article, he talks about how he expects the system to be criticised but at least in part because of its simplicity, he is convinced by its accuracy as the sole true house system.

Now Osiris writes:
so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.

Well actually I don't think this evidence at least supports the conclusion that there was an active discussion happening in France. There is certainly doubt about that.

A couple of things to remember: James Holden published his Ancient House Division article in 1982. Max Duval's work was first published in 1987. So I'm not sure what discussion you think is happening in France before Holden as Holden published his work 5 years prior to Duval.

So the only thing that might be left to determine discussion is Albert Negre's article. In which case where is the discussion? A single person expressing a single opinion is not a discussion. If there was a discussion in French astrology I would love to see it, but that would mean other people talking of Negre's work and actively discussing it. A sole article is not a discussion.

Now as it happens I have the entire collection of Cahiers Astrologique. There are 2104 articles across 238 publications. Having searched them all, there are exactly two references to the name of Negre's house system: the one in which it is first introduced, and a single footnote by Negre in another edition in which he draws the attention of the reader back to his original article.

That is hardly a discussion.

So in conclusion I have to disagree, on the face of this evidence at least that there was "was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden". If there was, then this isn't the proof of it at all.

Now what does this have to do with Deb Houlding's presentation?

Nothing at all that I can see!
It seems to be nothing more than a distraction in a hopeless and rather petty attempt to find some words Deb said in a hope to perform some ungracious 'gotcha!' so people can point to it excitedly and call her a liar.

But what did Deb herself say? Well if you get to slide 2, you'll see she says:
"Proportion of 'western' astrologers using Signs for Houses in early 1990s (pre-Project Hindsight): <0.01%"

Any indication of "nobody used it" is to be taken with the relevant context of a common idiomatic hyperbole that the number of people using it is so frightenly small as to be practically nobody.


I would have imagined it was understood by all but the most obtusely pernickity that Deb was discussing the community of the astrological world in the broadly English speaking cultlure of the time. I cannot imagine anyone seriously thinking Deb was talking about every author across every language in every printed work in the entire globe. If people feel she was really making that point then actually I think the astrological community is doomed.

(PS someone sent me the work of François Labat from 1961 which I look forward to reading - apparently there's a reference to WSH there too)

92
Zagata, I'm not going to respond in detail to your latest points, as it would just mean repeating what I said in my paper. They are all covered there, with more accurate translations from the Greek and including context which you (and others) choose to ignore. Just read the paper carefully (or stop going on about it). It also includes your half-remembered passages, which (spoiler alert) do not in fact talk about places/houses, just about the MC falling in other signs than the 10th from the ascendant -- which of course is the whole point of using quadrant houses.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

93
Paul wrote:
Orisis wrote: the Max Duval bookon domification is a scan from the 80s print edition, turn to page 47, he mentions Albert Negre who introduced his use of the zodiac as houses in a 1950 article in the famous magazine "les cahiers astrologiques" from Alexandre Volguine. so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.
Ok, so for the benefit of those who don't speak French let me address this properly, but forgive my translations, I'm horrible at all languages, modern or ancient.

So here's what Max Duval reports of Albert Negre's proposition:
(Max Duval, La Domification et Les Transits, 1987, p.47)


Fin 1950, Albert Nègre proposait sa « domification zodiacale ». L’étude de nombreux thèmes lui apporta la preuve qu’elle était très probablement la seule vraie, — se demandant s’il n’avait pas retrouvé la domification des Anciens. C’est encore une variante du Modus Aequalis dont le principe reste simple : le signe zodiacal où se place le Point Ascendant est la maison I, — le signe suivant la maison II, etc. L’inventeur termine ainsi sa présentation : « L’expérience m’ayant indubitablement prouvé que la domification zodiacale permet d’interpréter aisément là où les autres domifications échouent, j’estime qu’elle est la vraie méthode, et la seule applicable à tous les thèmes ». On allait le dire.

At the end of 1950, Albert Nègre proposed his "zodiacal house-system". The study of numerous charts provided him the proof that it was very probably the sole true one - wondering if he hadn't rediscovered the house-system of the Ancients. It is another variant of the Equal House system of which the principle remains simple: the zodiacal sign where where the Ascendant Degree is placed is House 1 - the following sign House 2, etc. The inventer ends his presentation thusly: "The experience having undoubtedly proven to me that the zodiacal house-system allows me to interpret with ease where other house-systems fail, I believe that this is the one true method, and the only one applicable to all charts". We were going to say the same thing.
(For simplicity, I've translated 'domification' as house system but am keen to avoid any hair-splitting about what a system means etc.)


Now this is what Albert Nègre had said of this system, which Max Duval was quoting from:
(Albert Nègre, La Domification Zodiacale, Les Cahiers Astrologique, No. 29, 1950)

Après avoir moi-même utilisé Placidus, Régiomontanus Campanus, et enfin le « modus æqua- lis », je désespérais de trouver une domification parfaite, lorsque l'idée me vint de supprimer les maisons terrestres pour les remplacer par les seuls signes du zodiaque auxquels je conférai le titre de Maisons. Les premiers résultats que j'obtins avec cette méthode me surprirent par leur exactitude. Je me mis donc à étudier de nombreux thèmes qui tous m'apportèrent la preuve que la domification que j'employais était très probablement la seule vraie. Avais-je retrouvé la domification des anciens? Je l'ignore. En tout cas, la nombreuse littérature astrologique dont j'ai pu disposer ne m'ayant révélé aucune trace d'une méthode identique ou seulement approchante, je crois être le premier à l'exposer et, comme elle n'a pas de nom, je lui en donnerai un; je l'appellerai Domification Zodiacale (en abrégé D.Z.).

After having myself used Placidus, Regiomontanus, Campanus and finally the Equal House system, I was desperate to find a perfect house-system, when the idea occurred to me to to remove the terrestrial houses and to replace them by the zodiac signs alone to which I bestowed the title of Houses. The first results I obtained with this method surprised me with their accuracy. I set myself therefore to study numerous charts which all brought to me the proof that the house-system I was employing was very probably the sole true one. Had I rediscovered the house-system of the ancients? I do not know. In any case, the numerous astrological written works which I had at my disposal not having revealed any trace of an identical method or anything close to it, I think to be the first to reveal it, and, as it has no name, I will give one to it: I will call it the Zodiacal House-System.
So as far as I can see it, we can summise a couple of things from it:
In 1950 French astrologers were not talking about WSH.
It was *so* unheard of that Albert Negre thought he was inventing it.
By the mid-late 80s, at least one other french astrologer heard of the system, and recommended its usage.


If you continue reading Negre's article, he talks about how he expects the system to be criticised but at least in part because of its simplicity, he is convinced by its accuracy as the sole true house system.

Now Osiris writes:
so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.

Well actually I don't think this evidence at least supports the conclusion that there was an active discussion happening in France. There is certainly doubt about that.

A couple of things to remember: James Holden published his Ancient House Division article in 1982. Max Duval's work was first published in 1987. So I'm not sure what discussion you think is happening in France before Holden as Holden published his work 5 years prior to Duval.

So the only thing that might be left to determine discussion is Albert Negre's article. In which case where is the discussion? A single person expressing a single opinion is not a discussion. If there was a discussion in French astrology I would love to see it, but that would mean other people talking of Negre's work and actively discussing it. A sole article is not a discussion.

Now as it happens I have the entire collection of Cahiers Astrologique. There are 2104 articles across 238 publications. Having searched them all, there are exactly two references to the name of Negre's house system: the one in which it is first introduced, and a single footnote by Negre in another edition in which he draws the attention of the reader back to his original article.

That is hardly a discussion.

So in conclusion I have to disagree, on the face of this evidence at least that there was "was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden". If there was, then this isn't the proof of it at all.

Now what does this have to do with Deb Houlding's presentation?

Nothing at all that I can see!
It seems to be nothing more than a distraction in a hopeless and rather petty attempt to find some words Deb said in a hope to perform some ungracious 'gotcha!' so people can point to it excitedly and call her a liar.

But what did Deb herself say? Well if you get to slide 2, you'll see she says:
"Proportion of 'western' astrologers using Signs for Houses in early 1990s (pre-Project Hindsight): <0.01%"

Any indication of "nobody used it" is to be taken with the relevant context of a common idiomatic hyperbole that the number of people using it is so frightenly small as to be practically nobody.


I would have imagined it was understood by all but the most obtusely pernickity that Deb was discussing the community of the astrological world in the broadly English speaking cultlure of the time. I cannot imagine anyone seriously thinking Deb was talking about every author across every language in every printed work in the entire globe. If people feel she was really making that point then actually I think the astrological community is doomed.

(PS someone sent me the work of François Labat from 1961 which I look forward to reading - apparently there's a reference to WSH there too)
I just read Labat. He simply uses solar houses. If you are male and have Sun in capricorn capricorn rises and sun is in leo in 8th. If born on Mars day Mars also rises in capricorn. It's a made up method ,no ancient authority mentions it.
Brennan supporters are so desperate that now they use Sun sign columns as evidence that wsh were used in the 20th century.
The previous comment about discussion of wsh in the 1960s to 80s is from a French guy not mine

94
Martin Gansten wrote: I have not so far seen anything in ancient or medieval texts to support the idea, so often repeated today, about the MC being a 'sensitive point' that 'floats' across the houses. Like the distinction between 'topical' and 'dynamic' houses, I think it's a massive red herring.

“57 And if the degree of the Midheaven withdrew towards the sign of travel, his authority and his work will be scarcely established; and if the sign was convertible, then it is worse. 58 And if the degree was in the sign of the Midheaven, then it is more excellent and he will be in the essence of authority. And if the degree was in the house of hope, then it is more excellent than the house of travel, because it inclines towards the sign of the Midhehaven. So emulate that in your work, and emulate the fixed, the convertible, and what has two bodies.???

Source: The Astrology of Sahl Ibn B. Bishr translated by Benjamin Dykes (2019), chapter 10, p.716.

If this is not proof of the floating MC, I don't know what is. After all, as Deborah said in her video, the 10th cusp is the summit of the sky and was shown in horoscopes to be on the top of the chart.

As I did in my video, I strongly recommend Levente László's paper "Valens on the third-sections of the quadrants: textual analysis and interpretation". After all, Levente is the current authority on Hellenistic Astrology who is most closely working with the original texts, and is doing so for the astrological community.

I will rest my case for now.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

95
I'm no Arabist, so I can't comment on Ben's translation, but as it stands, the passage from Sahl seems to confirm that he used both houses 'by counting' (that is, by sign) and by quadrant, and preferred them to agree, just as he preferred the nature of the sign (movable, fixed or double-bodied) to agree with the signification of the house. I'm still travelling and haven't got Sahl's work to hand (and very little time to spare at the moment), but as I recall, there are several instances in it that demonstrate both these perspectives, although with greater importance given to quadrant houses (and similarly in Abū Maʿshar). What they do not demonstrate is the exclusive use of a whole-sign house system where the MC is used as a floating sensitive point.

Also, Sahl is around 700 years later than Valens, so these are different topics. We wouldn't use Morin de Villefranche as evidence for what Sahl was doing.
I strongly recommend Levente László's paper "Valens on the third-sections of the quadrants: textual analysis and interpretation". After all, Levente is the current authority on Hellenistic Astrology who is most closely working with the original texts, and is doing so for the astrological community.
Levente is a good scholar (which doesn't mean he is always right), but arguments from authority really are pernicious, and speak volumes. When Levente's arguments hold up, it is because they are sound, not because he is an 'authority', and even less because of his intended audience (or because of his being on the 'right' side in this imagined battle between good and evil, which I suspect is really the issue at hand here). In this particular case, for reasons already given in my paper, I do not think they hold up.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

96
I will give the opinion of Dorian Greenbaum PhD in her essay published in the book "Hellenistic Astronomy: The Science in Its Contexts", Brill, 2020. A few quotes from the article in question:
“Each zodiacal sign represents a 1???12-segment of the chart, mostly known in Antiquity as a place (τόποϲ)???
(p.457).
“We have seen each zodiacal sign being equivalent to a place???
.(p.469)

In the section dedicated to whole-sign places she says following:
“The vast majority of extant horoscopes employ what has come to be known as the whole-sign system, in which each of the 12 portions of a horoscope consists of one whole zodiacal sign???
.(p.469)

In the section dedicated to quadrant places she says :
“Vettius Valens [Anth. 3.2] first describes this system, which evenly trisects each quadrant (a method that later became known as the Porphyry system). However, Valens’s illustrations of astrological practice never employ this system???
( p.470).

And one note at the end: the book "Hellenistic Astronomy: The Science in Its Contexts" is included in the bibliography of the article of Martin Gansten "Platikos and moirikos: Ancient Horoscopic Practice in the Light of Vettius Valens’ Anthologies".
http://www.astro-art.com/