16 by james_m hi mark, that is a nice summation of many older ideas on the houses. thanks. i went and read deb's introduction in her book 'the houses - temples of the sky'. in 9 pages you can quickly see where she is coming from in wanting to remove any fuzzy thinking which has been created - according to her comments in this section starting sometime in the 17th century. she seems to let william lilly off the hook for his reference of signs as 'co-signifactors' of the houses, saying the planets he identified as co-signifactors had nothing to do with sign rulerships. to quote her specifically: "Within his work associations between signs and house were given no particular emphasis beyond their joint rulership over similar parts of the body. The assumption that they could be equated in a more general sense seems to have taken root during the popularization of astrology in the 17th century and has been slowly infiltrating our reasoning ever since." those pesky 17th century modern astrologers, lol.. i'm not motivated to challenge some of the things she says in the introduction.. on balance i feel it's well written and wise to be clear on house meanings if you are going to be using this fundamental building block of astrology.. that said, it seems 'money' ( deb uses the 2nd house=taurus=venus idea as an example) wasn't thought about as much in the deep past, or they didn't use the word 'money' so much as wealth, or treasure trove for example (one of the parts in al biruni's book 'the book of instruction in the elements of the art of astrology' which uses venus and the 2nd house cusp to arrive at the part).. jupiter is the planet associated with wealth.. ptolemys tetrabiblios really offers nothing in the way of insight into where one would find some help in an issue around money either.. perhaps there are some traditional references for money that others are aware of.. perhaps on the other hand it is a 'modern' obsession... Quote Mon May 12, 2014 2:26 am
17 by Mark In traditional astrology all the succedent houses can be looked at from a financial perspective. 2nd-How we earn money ourselves 5th-How we spend money (nb: joy of Venus) 8th-Money through death (inheritance) and shared finances 11th-Receiving money /financial support from others (nb: joy of Jupiter) The ancients looked at these houses and the relevant lot, most especially the lot of fortune. Jupiter was as you said the natural significator of wealth. The Perso-Arabic astrologers often presented this as a tripartite approach to every issue: 1 Planets in House/House ruler 2 Natural significator 3 The relevant Lot Here is an article by Deb on traditional aphorisms for wealth: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/wealthaphorisms.html Mark As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly Quote Mon May 12, 2014 7:14 am
18 by james_m hi mark, thanks. i did note looking for a source on 'money' in tetrabiblios the use of the part of fortune as the primary part to work with. that was before you shared the link from deb here, but thanks for that anyway. some will enjoy reading it - it's a good article! take 2.. i read over the article again. what i find interesting is how in the indications for wealth or lack of wealth section the 2nd house is mentioned 4 times, verses the 1st mentioned twice. the angles are mentioned a few times in a way that could touch on a few houses.. the 8th was mentioned once..no mention of many of the other houses... perhaps the 2nd has something to do with a persons resources with money, or lack of it being an important part of it. Quote Mon May 12, 2014 5:27 pm
19 by james_m i don't have this book 'bonatti on nativities' which is part 9 of bonattis work ( BOA) benjamin dykes put out in 2008 or thereabouts. however, i found a spot outlining the contents and found what i have quoted below. now, perhaps there are different ways to consider prosperity, but it seems to me based only on the outline of bonatti's which i take is correct here - the 2nd house does have a lot to do with the concept of money.. thoughts anyone? perhaps some folks have the book and have read the section.. for the record, aside from mentioning the association with the 11th and good fortune, there is no such similarity in focusing on the getting rich idea which is mentioned so often in relation to house 2 as witnessed below. house 5 and 8 have no mention connected to any of this either.. Bonatti's dates of birth and death are unknown, the latter probably occurring between 1296 and 1300. "On the Second House: 1. Prosperity, substance, its acquisition 2. Where & by what means the native gets rich 3. When the native gets rich 4. "Why the ancients avoided certain ones of the said significators" 5. Whence & for what reason the native would get rich 6. The means whereby the native will get rich 7. The age or part of life in which the native gets rich 8. What significators will increase or decrease the native's money 9. "On what is signified by the places of the circle" 10. The same subject according to Abu 'Ali 11. Ruler of the ascendant in the various houses 12. Acquisition of substance, according to Abu 'Ali 13. On the same subject Quote Sun May 18, 2014 1:41 am
20 by Michael Sternbach Hi Mark, Thanks for your very interesting list of various views on the wheel of the houses. Happy that I finally found the opportunity for a proper reply. I will have a look at all the options in your list, one by one, over several posts. Starting today with: The Relationship to the Ascendant-Ancient astrology only looked at so called ptolemaic aspects ie sextile, square, trine or opposition. There we have no inconjunct aspects. Hence we have the fundamental idea of houses that can literally ?see? or cannot see the ascendant. The houses that could not see the ascendant were in aversion to that house. Hence the 2nd, 6th, 8th, and 12th place from the ascendant had unfortunate associations. For example the 2nd place from the ascendant was originally known as 'The Gates of Hades'. Its interesting that Indian astrology still considers the 2nd house unfortunate today. The mitigation for the 6th and 2nd place is their trine to the 10th house so they have a relationship to career and status matters. This idea of aversion is found more generally in ancient and Perso-Arabic delineation when houses have a ruler that is in aversion to them. This is an interesting observation, to be sure, as far as the most ancient systems (Equal/WSH) are concerned. It also brings back to mind the Vehlow-Rahman system we discussed recently, which regards the house cusps as aspects to the ASC, each with 15? extension on both sides. But, frankly, I am not sure how much of this explanation really holds true if we look at it critically... Why would the inconjunct ?aspects? be seen as much more negative than the opposition and the square? Why wasn't 7th believed to be that unfortunate? Sure, it can stand for one's enemies... But also for one's marriage! (Ok, some wouldn't see much difference here...) Furthermore, why weren't the 4th and 10th seen as particularly problematic? Mark, can this derivation of the house meanings based on aspects (and non-aspects) be found explicitly in ancient texts ? or is it a rather modern extrapolation? Needless to say, anybody, don't hesitate to contribute to this discussion whatever seems to fit ? I promise, you won't be seen as interrupting anything! Brainstorming is key to any real progress in controversial and complex topics! Quote Mon May 26, 2014 5:10 pm
21 by Konrad Hi Michael, Why wasn't 7th believed to be that unfortunate? Sure, it can stand for one's enemies... But also for one's marriage! (Ok, some wouldn't see much difference here...) It was believed to be unfortunate. I think it was Serapio who stated that the malefic houses are the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 12th. I am not at my books just now, so I can't give the exct reference. Until I saw this, a chart of a friend always puzzled me: he has a Jupiter-Venus-Mercury conjunction in the 7th and has a very active, but troublesome, life. A lot of those troubles involve money, women and business respectively. Furthermore, why weren't the 4th and 10th seen as particularly problematic? The 4th was, as stated above. The 10th most likely not as, you have stated before yourself, it is the highest point of the ecliptic in the sky. I don't think the houses were considered benefic and malefic due to aspects to the ASC alone, there is a visual aspect to this too. The 7th sign is the setting one, the 4th the nadir of the the dark half of the chart. http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com Quote Mon May 26, 2014 8:22 pm
22 by james_m i think it goes back to marks comment which is taken from the deep past.. houses that can't 'see' the ascendant are considered a negative.. the 150 or 30 aspect - 6/8 and 2/12 houses respectively - are not given a positive spin, however house 2 is the best of the bunch as it is rising up into the ascendant and planets found in house 2 eventually reach the ascendant by primary direction.. these other houses may form a nice aspect to the midheaven too which is considered more favourable.. essentially the angular houses are positive, or more positive then the cadent ones as planets in them have the ability to act.. planets in cadent houses have less strength based on this same ability to act. well, that is the theory anyway.. i don't know what happens when a person considers 'aspects' and planets in aspect to other planets in angular houses. i suppose the concept would get modified which i think is what any tradition that grows has happen to it. it gets modified or altered according to new insight. the trine and sextile aspects have always been considered a positive generally from my reading of older astro lit. the 7th had a connotation with death - sun setting, or planets dropping down below the horizon, so this runs counter to the idea of planets in angular houses having some power. i think one has to consider the planet. a planet like venus in a nocturnal chart on the descendant would be very different then mars in the same spot in a diurnal chart (john wayne gacy as an example of the later).. having the power to act can be a good or a bad thing and this has to be considered via the planet, as opposed to making a generalization over the house. Quote Tue May 27, 2014 12:00 am
23 by waybread Deb wrote:I'd like to see the discussion reframed, so that it can develop in a way that doesn't force it into an "either/or" issue, but just looks at the issues and explores the evidence available. Co-incidentally, I was in private discussion with Chris Brennan about a week ago, about his concerns that the ancient sources make it hard to overlook the natural association between Gemini and the third house. This may be something he wants to contribute to the thread. Currently, it's a bad time for me, but perhaps in a week or so I'll be able to be more active. I agree, and not just for the third house. I think anciently we find different house systems that get compiled, but not necessarily integrated. We have to think of the zodiac both seasonally and diurnally. The third was the house of the "goddess" but also the house of brothers. Hello, Gemini? The 9th was the house of "god"-- but this god was Apollo, the god of prophecy, a 9th house matter. Apollo was also a god of healing; and the 9th house in a house-sign correspondence, would have been located roughly around the constellation Ophiuchus, assuming Aries rising. Ophiuchus was associated with Aesclepius, the Greek healer. The second house had several names (like the "gates of hell") but was also "the house of the provisionment of life," which translated into the house of money. (Cf. the association of the underworld god Pluto with riches coming from under the earth, like metals used in currency.) To the Graeco-Egyptians writing horoscopes in demotic, the 4th was the "dwat", which was the hall of judgement of Osiris in the afterlife. From this I think we get the house of the father from The Father, Osiris. The 8th "house of death" occurs at a time of day before sunset when temperatures in Egypt were at their hottest-- and most inimical to plant and human life. And so on. References available upon request. I think the Greeks, rationalists that they were, never quite explained the thematic content of houses, vs. their favourability or unfavourability based upon their position around the horoscope circle. Deb, I really like your book on houses. Quote Tue May 27, 2014 1:27 am
24 by Michael Sternbach Hi Waybread, This is all most revealing! I would appreciate to get your references. Best, Michael Quote Tue May 27, 2014 7:20 pm
25 by waybread Michael, if you are interested in the ancient origins of the thematic content of houses (vs. whether they are "good or bad") the following sources might be helpful: The articles and monographs by Otto Neugebauer and his associates. Some of them, like Greek Horoscopes, are available as Google Books. He was a mathematician who became interested in the history of astronomy, and in this context he and colleagues interpreted-- and cast-- horoscopes in both the "literary" sources like Valens, but also in archaeological sources. Horoscopes that did not appear in the astrology texts of ancient times were preserved on papyrii and ostraca. I found his work on demotic horoscopes to be really interesting. (Demotic: a blend of the ancient Egyptian and Greek languages.) The preserved and translated Greek sources. I think most of these are available via amazon.com, although the translations may be by classics scholars with little knowledge of astrology. Search: Firmicus Maternus, Dorotheus of Sidon, Rhetorius the Egyptian, Manilius. Vettius Valens Anthologies is available on line at: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vet ... entire.pdf Unfortunately these books are not well-indexed, so you kind of have to hunt for the references to houses. Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos is a major textbook on ancient astrology, but he doesn't seem to have cared for interpreting houses thematically. I believe he mentions only 3 of them. Plutarch's Isis and Osiris is not about astrology, but I believe that this ancient work on Egyptian religion points clearly to several of the house origins. Then if you wish to look for potential connections from Greek mythology, see: www.theoi.com . It's an amazing treasure-trove of compiled textual sources from ancient Greek. This line of reasoning doesn't specifically follow the angular-cadent-succedent plan of interpreting houses, but I think it does help explain why, for example, the 3rd house should be simultaneously the house of the goddess and the house of brothers; plus some of the "joys" of planets in particular houses. The ancient Egyptian mindset, from whence I believe house themes derived, wasn't looking for rational systematics. If they thought an idea or belief had value, they were likely to compile it, without concern as it whether it correlated with other beliefs on the same topic. Quote Fri May 30, 2014 8:27 pm
26 by Michael Sternbach These are great hints, Waybread! Neugebauer seems to be important in many respects. So I have ordered a hard copy of his Greek Horoscopes, at last. Your various references to ancient sources relevant to the houses are useful, too. Thanks. Plutarch's Isis and Osiris is not about astrology, but I believe that this ancient work on Egyptian religion points clearly to several of the house origins. This made me wonder, could the house system perhaps have one of its roots in the myth of Isis and Osiris? Could, specifically, the lower hemisphere of the wheel represent the "underworld" (4th pertaining to death) and belong to Osiris? While the upper hemisphere (the Sun at the Midheaven) belongs to Horus? The ancient Egyptian mindset, from whence I believe house themes derived, wasn't looking for rational systematics. If they thought an idea or belief had value, they were likely to compile it, without concern as it whether it correlated with other beliefs on the same topic. Sounds pretty much like modern astrologers to me! Quote Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:02 pm
27 by waybread Michael, I think it does. You might also be interested in the work of Joanne Conman-- she has a new book out and is sceptical about just about anything written about Egyptian astronomy and astrology to date. But she does offer a decent corrective against assuming too much from fragmentary data. The "dwat" or 4th house was the judgment hall of Osiris. It was not specifically in the underworld (see Conman on this) but was clearly in an afterlife. Some cultural astronomers associated Osiris with the constellation Orion. Orion is basically below the ecliptic, but then the zodiac as the pathway of the sun seems more like a Mesopotamian idea. This should put the dwat in the north, however: and note that in a horoscope south is at the top of the chart. We do find the sun/soul of the deceased going through a sequence of specific stages, often identified as temples. There aren't 12 of these so far as I know, but then the base-60 arithmetic system from which we find the number 12 so prominent was a Mesopotamian invention, as well. There's more to the Egyptian mythology here that seems to match up with the thematic house contents, but I'll have to leave it for a later date. Quote Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:28 pm