Ben Dykes's Medieval Astrology

[bendykes]

My most recent translations tell me that the Arabic and early Latin astrologers (like the Hellenistic astrologers) used primarily, or exclusively, whole-sign houses.

What is your experience of using whole-sign houses versus quadrant houses, and do you think they are compatible--and in what way?

Should we reject intermediate cusps and use only whole-sign houses and the ASC-MC axes? Or should the quadrant houses be used only for planetary strength and not for topics of life? Or should we use exclusively quadrant houses?

Some example charts would be useful here. I have several, but I want to let discussion participants propose some: do you have a chart that only works with quadrant or whole-sign houses on some given topic?

[yuzuru]

I think that both systems can be used in a conjoined way.

I don´t have any fantastic case with me right now... but I remember Steven Birchfield analysing his own chart: his venus in the 7th sign, 6th by division, acted a lot more like a 6th significator during his firdaria, bringing disease.

I always look to both systems.

Good luck on the forum
Yuzuru

[papretis]

The early Arabic writers – at least Masha’allah – used a sidereal zodiac, for example the horoscope in Rob Hand’s site http://www.robhand.com/recept.htm can be reduced to a certain date using sidereal positions. And whole signs is the only house system where the zodiac matters; so maybe we should, in a clinical and unprejudiced way, examine whole sign houses (and possibly other medieval Arabic techniques) also on a sidereal zodiac? For example using sidereal whole signs Steven Birchfield’s Venus goes to the sixth house – the ruler of the 1st in the 6th house, that’s perfect symbolism for disease.

Good luck for the forum, Ben, from me too!

[chriswar]

I guess, I would say Ben, that if one was practicing early Arabic astrology and early Arabic astrology uses whole sign houses, that you should use whole sign houses. If one is doing Bonatti style medieval or Renaissance astrology, the practice was, for the most part, to use quadrant (do I have your terminology right?) houses. These are coherent, generally internally consistent systems, that in my opinion need to be taken on their own terms. That is, if one wishes to predict accurately and consistently!

Mixing and hybridizing assorted bits and pieces from a wide variety of systems is a hallmark of modern astrology and, in fact, epitomizes its approach. "I've done 5 charts with whole sign houses and I think they are way, way better than quadrant houses" seems like a rather frail basis for departing from Bonatti's or Lilly's actual practice. What instinctively appeals to the modern mind, ala sidereal Zodiac, is very much likely to lead one astray, again if one is trying to actually make consistently accurate predictions. I currently have over 1200 written horary analyses done for clients in my files all done using Lilly's methodology with quadrant houses. I can tell you that this method works exceedingly well!

Still, I would not try to argue that quadrant houses are the "best" or necessarily even medieval or Renaissance astrology is the "best" rather that these are systems that I have studied, worked with and at least partially mastered and that they give accurate results. I believe that Hellenistic astrology, for example, is a similar, though different system with the capacity, given another 20 years of practical application, to give similarly accurate results. These are systems, however, not just a pile of unrelated, independent techniques, that can be randomly assembled and still give accurate results. Too much hybridization is like doing a ballet with tap shoes, it ceases to be ballet! One ends up in saying, "I'm a traditional astrologer" but then following one's own new hybrid method rather than their actual practice.
_________________
Christopher Warnock
Renaissance Astrology &
Astrological Magic
chriswarnock@renaissanceastrology.com
Renaissance Astrology Website
http://www.renaissanceastrology.com

[bendykes]

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for your comments. While I am sympathetic to some of the points you raise, I'm not sure I agree with them as a whole. Please indulge me in a few comments that reflect what has been on my mind lately.

Although we can be reasonably sure that keeping Hellenistic astrology relatively separate from later points in the tradition is a good idea (since it was the original system), I'm hesitant to compartmentalize all of the phases of the tradition. The main reason is that, during the crucial Arabic-Latin period, there seem to be a number of things going on, both in terms of transitional developments between the masters, but even within the same master. For instance, in the translation of Abu Ma'shar on solar revolutions (by Project Hindsight), it seems clear he is using intermediate cusps in delineation. But in an excerpt on solar revolutions quoted by Bonatti (soon to be translated by me in full from a manuscript source), Abu Ma'shar seems to use whole-sign houses exclusively. Some similar ambiguities occur in Sahl (though in restricted areas, especially his use of the 4th house).

I worry that the closer we get to a strict, compartmentalization approach to different periods (though I'm not accusing you of this), is that we get perilously close to the view that "everything works." I think it is best that we rip off the scabs and see what happens. In the translation movement we are somewhere between having an embarrassment of riches and a cacophany of possibilities. In determining the difference between where a cusp falls on a whole-sign, it does make a difference to a client whether you tell him he will die (8th) or that he will go on a long-distance journey (9th).

It could certainly be--and I think this is very possible--that different methods are to be used in different circumstances. It seems that this was already evident in the Hellenistic period, when both the tenth sign and the degree of the MC both pertained to matters of eminence and profession. One concrete example is profections. The traditional astrologers went from sign to sign, but Zoller consciously rejects this and just counts house cusps. What if quadrant house cusps are to be used for the normal delineation of topics, but when profecting, we should go sign-by-sign? Or even, go sign-by-sign and then see where, in quadrant houses, the Lords of the signs fall? I'm open to a compatibilist solution on any given issue, as well as the possibility that in certain matters we get the interpretation of quadrant houses right simply because, by luck, they happen to be in the right whole-sign houses.

Here's even another possibility I'm just throwing out there. Traditional sources make a big deal out of a planet making a whole-sign aspect to its own domicile. Suppose the Lord of the ascending sign is in the quadrant 8th but the whole-sign 9th. It makes a whole-sign aspect to the rising sign, which will give it important management possibilities over the life as a whole (Ascendant). But maybe then, in terms of topics, we should interpret it as a 8th house planet.

Here's another example that departs from the whole-sign business, based on recent comments I made about "consultation charts" on my blog. In consultation charts, I surmised that the astrologer was trying to divine what God or Fate or whatever really wanted the client to know--quite apart from the particular horary question he or she had in mind. It could be that the right approach is to combine both the consultation chart model and the horary model into our practice: a combination of what the client really needs to know, and what he happens to want to know. But part of this requires a philosophical and theological decision on our part about what our practice is about.

Aristotle makes a good distinction between know-how, that is, knowing how to make things work, and knowing why things are the way they are. I'm hoping that wherever the cards may fall, these kinds of investigations will lead us to the "why" behind the "how."

I know that we all want Truth, and I trust that most traditional astrologers do not believe that "anything goes" (again, I'm not accusing you of this). But I think--to emphasize that I'm reflecting my own, pull-the-scabs-off mindset now--that we have to take transitions and developments like whole-sign versus quadrant houses seriously in a way that might transform our practice.

Best,
Ben

[chriswar]

Thanks Ben for your quick and thoughtful reply! You make some good points and I certainly look forward to seeing the fruits of your various translation projects. I have already started using Bonatti in my day to day delineations.
_________________
Christopher Warnock
Renaissance Astrology &
Astrological Magic
chriswarnock@renaissanceastrology.com
Renaissance Astrology Website
http://www.renaissanceastrology.com

[steve]

Hi Ben and all,

First Ben I must explain that the problem with logging on sorted itself out. I registered again and it seems the first time I registered there was a glitch because the activation email was never sent me. This time it was. So if you want, you can delete my first registration which was using the name "Steven". This time I registered as simply Steve.

OK. Whole sign houses, that is a sticky wicket as our British friends would say. I wanted to first address Yuzuru and Papretis since my name crept into the discussion

First concerning the charts by Masha'allah. Rob Hand spends a good deal of effort to explain how the dates were arrived at in his translation of On Reception. He gives arguments that neither prove the positions are sidereal nor tropical. There are explanations for the deviations between our modern software and the positions in the charts. There he explains that only one person dating these charts makes the claim that the ascendant was calculated using what might be seen as a sidereal Aries point. That was James Holden. Rob Hand, David Pingree and E.S. Kennedy however do not and all arrive at pretty much the same dates. For an explanation of this see Rob Hand's Appendix, The Charts of On Reception, Technical Details in his translation. He also explains in the Latin text that only the Ascendant and Midheaven degrees are given so there are no intermediary cusps.

What Masha'allah possibly did do (as did Abu Ma'shar) was use Sassanian tables (Zij al-Shah) derived from Indian tables to calculate the positions of all the superior planets, while following Ptolemy in calculating the inferiors and the Moon! That simply means that the positions of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars were likely sidreal positions. This interesting theory is discussed in Pingree and Kennedy's Book The Astrological History of Masha'allah. Whether or not Masha'allah used these positions in his horary charts is debateable and I'm afraid there is absolutely no definitive evidence one way or the other. Rob Hands own final word was that if these positions were truly sidereal, they are in a sidereal zodiac with an unknown ayanamsha. Neither do we have any way of knowing whether Masha'allah consciously intended that these positions be sidereal or tropical.

Concerning my illness which is a degenerate spinal condition in my lower back, Venus in her detriment (in Scorpio) rules the 6th house of my chart. I have a harder time believing the sidreal theory because Venus would be in her domicile in the 6th and the ancients said that if a benefic was in the 6th in their domicile it was an indication of good health! However, Venus, while in the 7th whole sign, falls away from the cusp of the 7th into the 6th and instead of her domicile, she is in her detriment! And very accurately, my problems began in 1999 at the same time Venus took over the Firdar and was managing her own Firdar. When Mars took over the management of Venus' Firdar, I made great improvments in my health and in fact after 4 years of being on sick leave, went back to work fulltime. Now I'm sure most might wonder why things improved under the management of a malefic

Well, Mars is Venus' dispositor since she is in his domicile and he regards it with a congenial aspect (sextile) and he is succedent (by division) and in his exaltation, above the horizon, in my nocturnal chart. Mars also has a strong testimony in my ascendant since he is the term and triplicity ruler and beholds the ascendant by a trine aspect. This is in fact an example of what Ben talks about in his recent post; Mars is in the 9th whole sign while falling succedent in the 8th division! Just so everyone understands what I'm talking about, when I say division I mean a quadrant division rather than whole sign.

I can quote several examples, both from Masha'allah and Abu Ma'shar where it is obvious they are using both and their delineations are very much dependent on both. In Masha'allah's delineation of the chart indicating the rise of Islam, he writes:

[Osthanes]

Hi all,

a survey of historical quadrant house methods and actual example charts from original works can be found in J. D. North's book, Horoscopes and history (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts, 13.). As far as I remember, charts from On receptions by Mâšâ’allâh are also discussed and I did not see if the author finds them as if they were developed in the frame of a sidereal zodiac.
The other intriguing fact is that he calls Alchabitius Declination method ‘Standard method’ as it forms a kind of basis for the later ones.
Perhaps you know this book, but otherwise I think it is worth to be checked.

Regards,

Levente

[papretis]

[steve]

Hi Papretis,

The whole purpose of the last chapter in Rob Hand's translation was to compare all of the charts using sidereal and tropical positions. He does this in tables for each chart. The problem is that both give fairly close positions. He also goes into some great detail on why it is very difficult, if not immpossible to arrive at any solid conclusions. I'm not going to go into the details because this thread was not a question concerning tropical vs sidereal and honestly, because there are so many factors involved in giving variations in positions of the planets, it is a question the ancients charts can not answer.

So I don't want to get too sidetracked from the intent of Ben's original question which is a very pertinent question.

One chart I know very well, is my own, and if I approach the circumstances of my life as objectively as possible; willing to see the good and bad without a subjective judgement, then I also must confess that in my chart whole sign houses gives a very accurate picture of my life! But my chart has no intercepted signs either and the cusps of the houses all fall in one sign agreeing with the whole sign arrangement.

In Omar's Book, he spends a couple paragraphs generally speaking about what happens when for example the cusp of a good house (like the 11th) falls in an evil place like the 12th whole sign. Even as early as Valens Anthology, his delineation when a house cusp fell in a whole sign which was not the same, is very interesting. He combines their significations and makes some very profound judgements. I'm at work right now, but if I have time when I get home I'll post that judgement to show just how he did that.

In Al Biruni's treatise On Transits, he relates to us that Abu Ma'shar specifically gets his elements of astrology from Vettius Valen's Anthology. In fact, in many places in Abu Ma'shar's writings we find the tell-tale signs of Valens' influence, although Abu Ma'shar rarely tells us from where he is getting his astrology!

Whole Sign houses with Divisional houses have a long history together. As Robert Zoller tells his students, if a planet is in one whole sign and in another division, its not a question of which house it is in, for it is in both! I see rather the challenge as coming to terms with it and placing an effort into finding out when we need to use whole sign and when and how we should be aware of the divisions!

Best regards,
Steven

[papretis]

Hi Steven and others,

thanks for your comments. I remembered after I had posted yesterday, that I actually have "On Reception", but I have lent it to friend a few months ago. I must ask it back and read what Hand says.

[Steven]

I'm home from work and thought I'd post up a couple of tidbits from astrological record concerning whole-sign and divisional houses and that in fact their co-use is a long tradition.

This first is from Valen's Anthology in Book 5 where he is giving us some general counsel into delineation.

[Clelia Romano]

First of all, congratulations to all for the important topic and the excellent contributions.
I have few example charts that I have being analyzing through many years. Some of them are of members of my family, other ones of my counseling as psychologist or astrologer.
Anyway the chart I know better is mine, as Steven pointed out about himself, with a very nice accord with the ancient Greek aphorism “ know yourself”

I do have the same position Steven referred about his Venus: I have Venus, Sun and Mercury in Aries in the 6th by Alchabitius and in the 7th by whole houses. I can say I have an excellent health, mostly because the Sun exalts in Aries and I have also a complex partnership life;-)
I considered Steven’s quote of Omar about the diminishing the quantity of dignity very important, and I´d like to complete that if a house can diminished its dignity falling by whole signs in a cadent house, we can say the same of a planet, that for whole sign is angular but in Alchabitius is in a cadent.


Also in this thread I think Ben’s words about the use of whole sign or topic houses for different questions was very interesting.
I have been using both topic and whole sign houses in delineation and prediction.
But I have seeing that in death matters the use of whole house’s sign goes much more clearly to the point. To say in few words, I saw charts that the death is predictable using whole sign houses and not topic houses. By another side I didn’t have any experience showing the opposite, i.e. that using topic houses the death prediction is clearer.
So, Ben´s idea on using whole sign for certain matters sounded interesting, just because this particular kind of experience I have.
May be in another matters topic houses would work better? It’s an exciting and intriguing question!

best regards

Clelia

[jroel]

Ben,

I actualy prefer the use of whole sign houses. I have found them to be more accurate than quadrant houses, especially when used in natal charts. Yet it is my opinion that if you are going to use whole sign houses - it is imperative that you also use the anitiscia - not as lilly uses them only if they come within a cerain orb of a planet, but as classical astrology uses them - interpreting aspects to the antiscions and interpreting them like "regular" planets... I believe Firmicus Maternus was where I read to use antiscia like regular planets...

Jonas