As Deb pointed out, Schmidt and Hand are more cautious about the matter, although like Holden, they do consider Ptolemy to represent more of a deviant form of mainstream Hellenistic astrology, as represented by guys like Valens, Dorotheus, Firmicus, etc. There is some truth to this, although if you really study Ptolemy's text closely you start to realize that, when taken in its entirety, its really not as divergent from the tradition as Holden and sometimes Schmidt make it out to be. There are definitely some major points of departure though.

You know, there is an interesting contradiction here. On the one hand, the consensus of opinion is that Ptolemy?s interest leant more towards the academic/theoretical. On the other, he is accused of presenting a theory that deviates from the mainstream works of his era (?). That doesn?t make sense does it? One thing for certain is that Ptolemy was passionate about his interest in astrology ? if he wasn?t, he wouldn?t have taken the trouble to point out and correct statements that he felt were misleading or wrong. At the same time, there was no reason for him to innovate, and no advantage to be gained from 'making things up'? So I agree with you. I don?t believe that Ptolemy is as divergent from mainstream tradition as he is made out to be either, and I think the perceived points of departure show us that we still have a lot to learn.

On the issue of the houses, the only comments within the Tetrabiblos that are clear and unambiguous are those that demonstrate the use of quadrant division. Any that are used to support the use of whole-sign houses are the result of Schmidt?s arguments about his perspective, using his translation of Hubner?s preferred Greek text. Ultimately, any argument made in favour of whole sign is just as easily contradicted, whilst the demonstration of quadrant division is clear. Ptolemy describes the influence of these places and how they are calculated, so I don?t see how the Tetrabiblos could ever be used to argue that whole-sign is the oldest system, since the only clear evidence it presents is to show the use of quadrant division.

But I am wary of this whole argument and anyone?s attempt to have it settled, when we ought to be admitting that our understanding of ancient technique is still very premature, based on a pinprick of sources available. Since Wikopedia is a great place for checking facts, I think it would be great to see the onus placed on what we have currently established. For example, if it could detail the earliest undisputed use of the whole sign system as ????, and the earliest undisputed use of Porphyry, Placidus, etc., etc. Admittedly, this tells us very little about which was the oldest system, because it only really shows the oldest example that we have been able to find. Generally though, wouldn?t Wikopedia be a perfect reservoir for those kinds of details that could be easily updated and corrected as new texts come to light, or students fall across something that has never been noticed before?

ok then how do you explain that at certain latitudes ascendant and descendant are in the same sign, MC is in Ascendant??. Astronomically Quadrant systems make no sense

For an explanation, I?d defer to Mike Wackford and offer a link to his series on house division in polar regions: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

But astrology (as we know it) was not developed near to polar regions, so its ancient practitioners would never have experienced that problem, and that?s not what this thread is about. Unless someone is convinced that oldest is inevitably best, what does identifying the oldest system have to do with which system makes the best sense?

Yet Ptolemy we swallow hook line and sinker and there is not one single reference to an earlier work or author! Think about it - that's strange and it is not true with his greater work the Almagest! Sorry- there's something fishy with Ptolemy's astrology <g>!

So, could someone suggest what I and other lost souls should do about the fact that Ptolemy pretty much is the basis of the Western astrology we know?

In the Almagest, Ptolemy often goes out of his way to document his sources and reiterate earlier physics and mathematics and he clearly documents his corrections. In the Tetrabiblos there is not one documented source ... I question why he does not so assiduously document his sources as he does in his even larger and more detailed works ... It is this big deviation within Ptolemy's own works that raises questions.

Sharrock and Ash note that ancient historical writers tended to name their sources either when they were faced with contradictory accounts, or when their careful research had unearthed some particularly unusual material. I doubt the absence of source citations in the Tetrabiblos is indicative of anything other than our own suppositions and expectations.

Deb wrote:For an explanation, I?d defer to Mike Wackford and offer a link to his series on house division in polar regions: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

But astrology (as we know it) was not developed near to polar regions, so its ancient practitioners would never have experienced that problem, and that?s not what this thread is about. Unless someone is convinced that oldest is inevitably best, what does identifying the oldest system have to do with which system makes the best sense?

but itshould work for everyone not only people who live in temperate latitudes

I doubt the absence of source citations in the Tetrabiblos is indicative of anything other than our own suppositions and expectations.

Sounds like a good point. Even Lilly?s Christian Astrology is deficient in the book standards we now expect. The passage of centuries has produced scholarship and publication dos and don?ts.

Deb wrote:For an explanation, I?d defer to Mike Wackford and offer a link to his series on house division in polar regions: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

But astrology (as we know it) was not developed near to polar regions, so its ancient practitioners would never have experienced that problem, and that?s not what this thread is about. Unless someone is convinced that oldest is inevitably best, what does identifying the oldest system have to do with which system makes the best sense?

great article but confusing for a non astronomer for me. What house systems does he suggests then?
And is astro.com right when i get 3 of gemini rising at latitude 39?
Or the flaws in the softwares only apply to high latitudes?

thanks

What house systems does he suggests then?

He advocates Placidus houses (the semi-arc system). Note:

Without the convenience of trigonometry, calculation of the other cusps is both tedious and time-consuming, as are primary directions reckoned in the Zodiac. Placido de Titi was able to circumvent such calculation because he had access to hand-written tables, compiled for the purpose by Magini, but as these were not publicly available he devised alternative shortcuts for his manual, Primum Mobile. This book clearly warned that cusps obtained by the shortcuts, which use trigonometry to approximate the real house-lines, were no more than serviceable approximations, but Placido's caveat went largely unheeded by later commentators. This failure resulted in the widespread misconception that the makeshift trigonometric version of these houses was the system itself and it was criticised accordingly. It also contributed to almost universal acceptance of the notion that the semi-arc model could not be applied in the Polar Regions.

Note also:

While degrees of the Zodiac will locate a planet's exact position within a sign, exact position within a house must be determined by the structure of whichever method is in use. As such, Ecliptic longitude alone will seldom indicate a planet's exact house position within the semi-arc [Placidus], Campanus or Regiomontanus systems. When a planet has much Ecliptic latitude, its longitude will often place it in the wrong house altogether. Ecliptic longitude will determine exact position within the Equal House system and it will also be of some assistance with Porphyry or Natural Graduation. Planetary house position has not been properly defined within the Topocentric system and it is ambiguous under the methods of Morinus and Koch.

Whether one chooses to work with the semi-arc system or not, Mr. Wackford's articles have cleared up many misconceptions about the nature and use of Placidus houses.

do you know Michael Wackford`s site or contact? Books?
thanks

woodwater wrote:do you know Michael Wackford`s site or contact? Books?
thanks

No, just the articles on this site ... and the responses he sometimes writes ...

I found this:

Global Horoscopes
Michael Wackford Correlation 2005, 23.1, 45-64. This paper concludes a 5-part review of horoscopy in the Polar Regions whose aim was to clear away some of the many misconceptions of circumpolar horoscopy, to examine the nature and viability of a number of house systems, and to establish which methods of house division can be successfully applied in the Polar Regions and therefore across the entire planet. Only Equal, Campanus and Placidus deserve consideration. The first presents difficulties when the circumpolar ascendant reverses, the second pretends that all skies are as witnessed at the equator, the last is the only quadrant system that can be applied in polar regions without sacrificing astronomical and astrological integrity. But it can still fail to give twelve unambiguous cusps

A Test of House Systems
Richard Nolle Kosmos 1987, 16.1, 25-27. The question of the best house system has plagued astrologers for centuries. My study used 375 notable athletes (most of them from the Gauquelin Book of Amnerican Charts) with 468 non-athletes as controls, all with timed births, whose charts were computer-calculated using Placidus, Koch, and Equal house systems. None showed a significant relationship between athletic achievement and house position, although Placidus did best followed very closely by Koch. In contrast, Mars conjunct ascendant or MC with a five-degree orb showed a significant relationship (p = 0.03) consistent with Gauquelin's Mars effect. Further tests are needed, but as they stand the results indicate that house placement is not a significant chart factor.