Adding to Michael’s post above.

I’ve deleted some posts that were off topic or were serving to only criticise either astrologers or scholars.

There has been some great discussion here so let’s keep that going without devolving into endless argument by authority, bashing scholars, or calling astrologers pejorative names.

I agree with you Mark and also think it would be a good idea to start a new thread soon - but this thread started with promotion of Chris Brennan's 7 hour rebuttal of my presentation - and because of the widely publicised points he made I have had a mass of points to deal with in the wake of that. I have said this thread will be the one and only place that I centralise responses to any points put to me regarding that. I still have some points to make, but this week other pressures must take priority. So I would like a little more time to deal with some of the remaining rebuttal points I am aware of. Then I can index those points for easy reference if they get brought up again. In the meantime, this is probably serving as nothing more than a scratchboard for ideas. Let's play it through a bit longer, and then I'd like to start a new thread with a different angle, based more on Martin's paper and the most relevant details that have come out of this thread and the general discussions so far.
I'll need to be quiet myself for a few days as I catch up with the other deadlines. I agree 100% that the discussion here should concern astrological arguments, and not arguments with or between astrologers.

I would like to share with the astrological community Emperor Hadrian's horoscope from Hephaistion Book II as preserved by a Byzantine manuscript (XIV Century) that is stored at the National Library of Venice under name Marc. gr. Z. 324. As in Hephaistion's text in Book II, as well as in the horoscope itself, both the degree of the Asc and of the MC are written, but no intermediate house cusps are given. This is another proof that they did not use quadrant house cusps, at least during the time when the horoscope was calculated and interpreted.

astroart wrote:As in Hephaistion's text in Book II, as well as in the horoscope itself, both the degree of the Asc and of the MC are written, but no intermediate house cusps are given. This is another proof that they did not use quadrant house cusps, at least during the time when the horoscope was calculated and interpreted.

I really don't know why you think that this example shows us anything about the house system that was employed.
Just at a glance we know that this chart could be using Whole Sign Houses, Equal Houses or Porphyry Houses - all the data needed is literally provided for all three of those house systems.

You are hardly suggesting, I hope, that if someone was using Equal Houses, let's say, that they would need to write:
1st House: 0 Aquarius
2nd House: 0 Pisces
3rd House: 0 Aries

I mean that's what it would be in Equal Houses right? No more than they had to write that for WSH, they didn't need to write it for EH. And if they wanted Porphyry houses it's the kind of mathematics we might expect from an 8 year old today.

On astro.com, they say that "The Placidus system of houses, also formerly known as the Ptolemaic Method, is a system that can be described as "Time-proportional House System of Movement". This is in contrast to the space-based systems that are built on astronomical great circles, rather than on time curves."
Do we have an explanation as to why Placidus is linked to Ptolemy?
Similarities and differences.

Let's take the second horoscope from Hephastion book II attributed to Antigonus of Nicaea which corresponds to about noon of 5 April 40 CE. Robert Hand’s opinion is that this chart is of one of the family of the emperor Hadrian.The figure below is from Greek manuscript preserved in the Library in Florence under name Laur. 28,13 (XIV Century), ff.128v.

According to the text the Ascendant is on 24th degree of Cancer and Medium Coeli is on 10th degree of Aries. In the chart the positions of the planets are as follows:
-Sun on 19 degree Aries
-Mars on 15 degree Aries
-Venus on 5 degree Aries
-Mercury on 6 degree Aries
And the author of the horoscope, probably he was court astrologer of emperor Hadrian, in his interpretation says something very important:
“ [He will be] distinguished because of the 4 stars that chance to be in the Midheaven.??? (see Hephastio of Thebes, Apotelesmatics book 2, Project Hidnsight, 1998, p.63).
Because MC is on 10th of degree of Aries, neither in quadrant house system (Porphyry) nor in equal house system is possible Venus and Mercury to be found in tenth house.
One important remark. In Hellenistic astrological terminology Greek term “mesouranema??? means not only the degree of Midheaven but also it is the name of 10th house !

Addition:
Here I will give the original Greek text of the second horoscope from Hephastion book II as published in CCAG VIII.2, p.84.
The passages highlighted in blue mark the positions of the Sun, Mars, Venus and Mercury respectively, while the first two passages highlighted in red refer to the position of the Ascendant and Midheaven. The last text highlighted in red and marked with an asterisk refers to the text which says that the native will be prominent because there are 4 planets in the tenth place/house.

Hi Astroart

I agree with Paul that the 14th century reproduction of Hadrian horoscope tells us nothing, except that the provision of the Asc and MC shows ancient astrologers had all the means they needed to calculate quadrant cusps by whatever method they preferred as they made personal use of the chart.

Your second example would be more relevant as an example of WS application in practice, except for the fact that the term used to describe the placement of the planets in the middle of the heavens mesouranema has various potential interpretations: upon the MC, within the 10th house, in the middle part of the sky generally, or the ???midst of heaven???. It is literally describing the middle and elevated part of the sky, and so only context can tell us if this was being stated to describe the planets as within the 10th house, or to demonstrate that they are elevated and highly visible, and so ‘proud’ in the scheme.

It is a definitely a principle in traditional astrology that planets have a more pronounced and manifest effect when they are elevated and near to the midheaven – even if they are in the 9th house. This is the reason why the 9th house, although cadent, is not a particularly destructive or weak house, because the elevation of the planets there makes them strong.

But even setting that aside, many historical astrologers employ a 5° orb for house csups, as I do myself, so if the MC is at 10° Aries, this example would have 2 of the 4 planets within the 10th house and the other two strongly placed upon its cusp. I would describe all four planets as angular and associated with the 10th house here (as would Lilly and many historical astrologers who clearly used quadrant houses).

So whilst I can understand why you would find this example interesting, I hope you can understand why I don’t.

To clarify though, the argument in this thread is not that a WS approach was never taken but that we are unable to find any of the historical astrologers recommending it as a preferred approach.

Ouranos wrote: Do we have an explanation as to why Placidus is linked to Ptolemy?

Placido became an accomplished mathematician and astrologer, working, it seems, as a teacher. He first went into print with a small collection of horoscopes published in Padua, 1641. Within the year he had issued another collection of horoscopes and a larger astrological text. Some years later he produced his two major works, the Physiomathematica of 1650 and Tabulae Primi Mobilis of 1657. Between these two he had printed an annotated edition of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. If Placido had any intellectual mentor then it was Ptolemy. He wrote, "I desire no other guides but Ptolemy and reason".[5]

5) Placidus de Titis, Primum Mobile, op. cit., p.47.

This is from Placidus and the Rosicrucian Connection by Michael Baigent:
https://www.skyscript.co.uk/placidus.html

Ptolemy's Almagest provided the tables of hour circles that Placidus used to build his Tabulae Primi Mobilis and Placidus obviously believed that Ptolemy used them to create the house cusps, as others, such as Ibn Ezra had already believed.

But even setting that aside, many historical astrologers employ a 5° orb for house csups, as I do myself, so if the MC is at 10° Aries, this example would have 2 of the 4 planets within the 10th house and the other two strongly placed upon its cusp. I would describe all four planets as angular and associated with the 10th house here (as would Lilly and many historical astrologers who clearly used quadrant houses)

From the author of the Anonymous Greek Commentary to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and translated (probably) in Latin from Hieronymus Wolf and titled: Eἰς τὴν Τετ??άβιβλον τοῦ Πτολεμαίου ???ξηγητὴς ἀνώνυμος. In Claudii Ptolemaei Quadripartitum enarrator ignoti nominis, Basel, 1559, p.109-110
we understand that the inventor of the rule of 5 degrees before the house cusp is Claudius Ptolemy. Since the horoscope we are discussing is of a person born 100 years earlier than Ptolemy, it is clear that this rule of 5 degrees is inappropriate in the given case.

If we apply to the given case the rule of Occam's edge "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" I think that from the text clearly follows that Venus and Mercury cannot be in the ninth place as it would follow from the quadrant house system.

Deb wrote

Ptolemy's Almagest provided the tables of hour circles that Placidus used to build his Tabulae Primi Mobilis and Placidus obviously believed that Ptolemy used them to create the house cusps, as others, such as Ibn Ezra had already believed.

Thank you!