Ijdp Article p1 - 1

International Journal of Divination
& Prognostication 4 (2023) 1–43

brill.com/ijdp
Platikos and moirikos: Ancient Horoscopic Practice

in the Light of Vettius Valens’ Anthologies
Martin Gansten
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
martin.gansten@ctr.lu.se
Abstract
From the ancient practice, implied by many textual sources although never formally
prescribed, of identifying the twelve horoscopic places (the δωδεκάτροπος dōdekatropos)
with the zodiacal signs, recent scholarship has often concluded that such identifica-
tion constituted a tenet of ancient astrology even at a conceptual level. On the basis
of a close reading of Vettius Valens’ Anthologies, supported by other ancient sources,
this paper argues that while the places, like other elements of horoscopic practice,
were often provisionally approximated by sign position alone, calculation of places
by degree, with boundaries differing from those of the zodiacal signs, was consist-
ently upheld in principle as more accurate and useful. Specifically, Valens’ preference
appears to have been for places calculated from the quadrants formed by the intersec-
tions of horizon and meridian, a method also occasionally used in the Anthologies for
defining planetary configurations and for annual transmission (παράδοσις paradosis).
In several cases, such methods are explicitly employed even for horoscopes presented in
a simple, signs-only format.
Keywords
Vettius Valens – horoscopic places – house systems – domification – dōdekatropos –

ancient astrology – classical astrology – Hellenistic astrology
1 Introduction
Over the past two decades, an emerging consensus regarding the concept of
the twelve horoscopic places (the so-called δωδεκάτροπος dōdekatropos) has
© Martin Gansten, 2023 | doi:10.1163/25899201-12340029 Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

via Open Access. This is an open access article distributed under the terms
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license. of the CC BY 4.0 license.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
2 Gansten
been discernible among the admittedly limited circle of scholars engaged in

the study of ancient astrology, as well as among practitioners engaged in recon-
structing such forms of the art.1 The import of this consensus is that the
horoscopic places were originally identical with the twelve signs of the zodiac –
not merely as a matter of simplified practice but conceptually, even at a learned
level.2 In what follows I shall refer to the identification of the twelve places
with the zodiac signs as “whole-sign places” (a modification of the designation
“whole-sign houses” in vogue among contemporary practitioners, so as better
to reflect classical terminology).
Distinguishing between different levels of learning as well as of practice
among astrologers in the ancient world appears to me to be essential both for
historians and for contemporary practitioners in search of a classical standard.
Access to authoritative sources (whether written or oral) was necessarily more
restricted in the ancient world than among present-day practitioners, and it
seems reasonable to presume that differences in ancient practice at “street
level” – insofar as they can be discerned – may often be understood in terms
of varying levels of education or sophistication rather than as differences of
opinion as such.
Building on the typology of Alexander Jones, Andreas Winkler divides both
Greek and Egyptian preserved horoscope materials into deluxe horoscopes,
elaborate horoscopes, and basic horoscopes, of which the last type is by far
the most common.3 Financial considerations may be a partial explanation of
this circumstance, as suggested by Winkler;4 but we may also assume that rel-
atively unskilled practitioners were more common on the ground than highly
skilled ones, as has been true in all historical periods, the present not excepted.
1 These two categories overlap in part, some scholars also being practitioners, and are fur-
thermore interdependent to some extent, reconstructionist practitioners basing their
approaches partly on historical research and historians occasionally benefiting from practi-
cal perspectives on the applications of astrological doctrine. Nevertheless, it seems relevant
here to make a certain distinction between those who have had specialized academic train-
ing in working directly with historical source texts and those who have not.
2 For some examples of this position in academic publications, see Hand, “Signs as Houses”;
Heilen, Hadriani genitura, 692ff.; Greenbaum, “Hellenistic Horoscope,” 469–70. For exam-
ples published outside academia, which adhere wholly or partly to academic standards of
scholarship, see, for instance, Holden, “Ancient House Division”; Hand, Whole Sign Houses;
Schmidt, Definitions and Foundations, 3–32 passim, and (with a somewhat modified posi-
tion) “Problem of House Division”; Brennan, Hellenistic Astrology, 365–414; Dykes, Astrology
of Sahl, 32ff., and Persian Nativities IV, 49–61 (both chiefly addressing medieval Arabic
sources); László, “Third-Sections.” Publications of both types will be referenced below.
3 Winkler, “Stellar Scientists,” 95ff.
4 Winkler, 103–4.
Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

International Journal of Divination & Prognosticationof4 the (2023) 1–43
CC BY 4.0 license.
Platikos and moirikos 3
A “basic horoscope” – meaning one that contains only the zodiacal sign place-
ments of the seven planets (using that term, here and below, in the earlier
sense that includes the sun and moon), and usually the ascendant, typically
along with the date and time of birth – could be produced by either a skilled or
an unskilled astrologer, whereas an unskilled practitioner could not produce
a more complex horoscope. Detailed manuals on astrology would necessarily
have been authored by highly skilled, or at least well read, practitioners.
In addition to varying levels of education and understanding among astro
logers, it seems necessary to distinguish between ideal or normative practices
on the one hand and the most common practices on the other, even within the
work of a single author. In a 2007 paper making a vigorous case for whole-sign
places as the standard system of ancient astrology, Robert Hand somewhat
rhetorically asked why astrologers would practise one thing but describe
something else in their manuals.5 A prosaic but, in my view, plausible answer
would be: because the ideal practice was too troublesome or time-consuming
to follow in every case. Shortcuts are a common enough phenomenon in the
history of astrology as in most fields of human endeavour. To cite just one par-
allel instance, in the early modern period some astronomically astute authors
taught that the position of the moon in a horoscope should be corrected for
parallax;6 yet the plentiful example horoscopes in their own publications dis-
play the uncorrected, geocentric position of the moon, which was the one that
could easily be found from available printed tables.
As our largest single source of written example nativities – what Neugebauer
and Van Hoesen perhaps rather misleadingly dubbed “literary horoscopes” –
the Anthologies of Vettius Valens have been of great interest to scholars and
practitioners alike. The work is often specifically cited as evidence of whole-sign
places being the norm of ancient astrology, on the basis of largely quantita-
tive and, in my view, somewhat simplistic arguments. My own reading of the
5 Hand, “Signs as Houses,” 143.

6 See, e.g., Morinus, 354 (Astrologia Gallica [transl. Holden], 23): “Therefore, at least the Moon’s
place as deduced from the ephemerides will have to be corrected by parallax […] but not the
places of the other Planets, which scarcely experience a parallax of 1 or 2 minutes [of arc]”
(Quamobrem Lunæ saltem locus ex Ephemeridibus deductus, erit per parallaxim corrigendus
[…] non autem aliorum Planetarum qui vix unius, aut alterius minuti parallaxim patiuntur)
and Placidus, 17: “[…] from which it then follows that the places of the planets are to be
examined as taken according to parallax, and not in the received way, at the centre of the
earth, as professors generally opine” ([…] ex quo deinde sequitur consideranda esse loca pla
netarum accepta secundum parallaxim, & non secundum receptum ad centrum terræ, sicut
putant communiter Professores). Here and below, all translations are my own unless other-
wise stated. Where relevant, I have contrasted my translations of Valens with those published
by Schönberger and Knobloch, Riley, and Schmidt.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 4 of(2023) 1–43
the CC BY 4.0 license.
4 Gansten
Anthologies – and, secondarily, of other astrological works from the ancient

period – rests on two partly related hermeneutic principles. The first is that,
although authors can and do differ even on major issues, and any given
author may be inconsistent or change his mind over time, an internally coher-
ent model providing an explanation for all statements on a given topic in a
single-author work is preferable to one suggesting the author to have held two
or more mutually contradictory opinions on that topic, or to have changed his
mind multiple times during the course of writing with no subsequent attempts
to unify the text. The second principle is that giving preference to the more
detailed and explicit statements by an author, and regarding the less detailed
as abridged or simplified even if more numerous, carries greater explanatory
power than prioritizing the more frequent types of statement and regarding
the less frequent as aberrations. As noted in a different context by Edgar Wind,
“the commonplace may be understood as a reduction of the exceptional, but
[…] the exceptional cannot be understood by amplifying the commonplace.
Both logically and causally the exceptional is crucial, because it introduces
(however strange that may sound) the more comprehensive category.”7
Some of the arguments presented below are necessarily based on a close
reading of textual passages coupled with a precise understanding of technical
astrological concepts. In such work it is undoubtedly the case that “God is in
the details,” and I have endeavoured to read the texts with careful attention
both to context and, where relevant, to sequential structure. While our con-
clusions differ, I fully concur with the sentiment expressed by Robert Hand:
“Finally, whatever one may think of astrology in general and Greek astrology
in particular, some of the practitioners were very learned men. We should
assume, therefore, that what they did, they did intentionally.”8
2 Places by Sign and by Degree in Valens’ Anthologies
The overwhelming majority of the more than 120 example nativities discussed
in the Anthologies list only the sign positions of the ascendant and of some or
all of the seven planets, with the occasional addition of secondary points cal-
culated from them; in other words, they are “basic horoscopes.” Some of these
nativities are accompanied by astrological arguments and interpretations, as
instanced by the very first example:
7 Wind, Pagan Mysteries, 191.

8 Hand, “Signs as Houses,” 162.

CC BY 4.0 license.
Let the sun be in Scorpio, the moon in Cancer, Saturn in Aquarius, Jupiter
in Sagittarius, Mars in Scorpio, Venus in Libra, Mercury in Scorpio, the
ascendant in Libra. Since the nativity is nocturnal, I look for the moon:
this happens to be in Cancer, in the triplicity of Mars. We find the [star] of
Mars succedent in its own domicile and triplicity and in its own sect; then
Venus, sharing [the triplicity] with it, in the ascendant in its own domi
cile; [the] 3rd [triplicity ruler], the moon, in the midheaven in its own
domicile. It is clear, then, that the nativity is an eminent one, as the rulers
are appropriately positioned. And seeking the Lot, I found it in Aquarius:
the ruler Saturn is there, in Good Fortune, in its own domicile and tripli
city. And likewise the 11th from the Lot of Fortune, that is, the profitable
sign, <is Sagittarius: there is> Jupiter. And I found the Exaltation of the
nativity: from the moon to Taurus makes 11 [signs], and the same from
the ascendant in Libra leaves off in Leo, in the Good Daimon. The ruler
of this, the sun, was found in the midheaven from the Lot of Fortune: it
made the nativity more illustrious and eminent.9
These arguments all agree with a whole-sign method of determining the places
(see fig. 1),10 and while they do not preclude other methods, the former thus
appears to be the most parsimonious interpretation. We see in this passage the
use of standard nomenclature for some of the places: in addition to the first and
tenth places – the ascendant (ὡροσκόπος hōroskopos, literally “hour-marker”)
9 Vett. Val. II 22,2–9: ἔστω Ἥλιον εἶναι Σκορπίῳ, Σελήνην Καρκίνῳ, Κρόνον Ὑδροχόῳ, Δία Τοξότῃ,
Ἄρεα Σκορπίῳ, Ἀφροδίτην Ζυγῷ, Ἑρμῆν Σκορπίῳ, ὡροσκόπον Ζυγῷ. ἐπεὶ οὖν νυκτερινὴ ἡ
γένεσις ζητῶ Σελήνην· αὕτη δὲ τυγχάνει Καρκίνῳ τριγώνῳ Ἄρεως. τὸν δὲ τοῦ Ἄρεως εὕρομεν
ἐπαναφερόμενον ἰδίῳ οἴκῳ καὶ τριγώνῳ καὶ αἱρέσει ἰδίᾳ, εἶτα τὴν ἐπίκοινον τούτῳ Ἀφροδίτην
ὡροσκοποῦσαν ἰδίῳ οἴκῳ, γ′ Σελήνην μεσουρανοῦσαν ἰδίῳ οἴκῳ. πρόδηλον οὖν ὅτι ἔνδοξος
ἡ γένεσις, ἐπιτόπως ἐσχηματισμένων τῶν οἰκοδεσποτῶν. ζητήσας δὲ καὶ τὸν κλῆρον εὗρον
Ὑδροχόῳ· τούτῳ ἔπεστι Κρόνος ὁ κύριος ἀγαϑοτυχῶν ἰδίῳ οἴκῳ καὶ τριγώνῳ. ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ
ια′ τοῦ κλῆρου τῆς τύχης, τουτέστι τὸ περιποιητικὸν ζῴδιον, <Τοξότης· ἐκεῖ> Ζεύς. ἔλαβον δὲ
καὶ τὸ ὕψωμα τῆς γενέσεως, δ ἀπὸ Σελήνης ἐπὶ Ταῦρον γίνεται ι̅α̅ καὶ τὰ ἴσα ἀπὸ ὡροσκόπου
Ζυγοῦ· κατέληξεν Λέοντι ἐν τῷ ἀγαϑῷ δαίμονι. τούτου κύριος ὁ Ἥλιος εὑρέϑη μεσουρανῶν τῷ
κλήρῳ τῆς τύχης· ἐποίησε λαμπροτέραν καὶ ἐνδοξοτέραν τὴν γένεσιν. Here and below, Greek
alphanumerics have been consistently translated using numerals, sacrificing aesthetics to
literality. The nativity agrees with 24 October, 50 ce (all ancient dates refer to the Julian
calendar).
10 The astrological figures shown here are in the modern style, keeping the signs of the
zodiac proportional while distorting the relationship between horizon and meridian,
rather than vice versa (any two-dimensional representation of the three-dimensional
relations involved necessarily distorts one or the other). The system of terms included is
the one known as Egyptian, the most commonly used system from Late Antiquity to the
end of the medieval period.

6 Gansten
25°
X IX
XI VIII
XII VII
10° I VI
II V
III IV
Figure 1 Whole-sign places. The entire sign on the ascendant is the first place,
followed by each of the sign-places in turn. The culminating degree
(midheaven or medium caeli) may or may not fall in the tenth place.
and midheaven (μεσουράνημα mesouranēma), also known as the two primary

angles (κέντρα kentra) – we have the fifth place of Good Fortune and the elev-
enth place of the Good Daimon.11 Two so-called lots are also mentioned: the
Lot of Fortune and the [Lot of] Exaltation. Lots are derived by measuring
the distance between two predefined points (typically two planets) and pro-
jecting the same distance from a third point (typically the ascendant). One
of these distances is explicitly measured in signs, a method that often but not
always gives the same result as measurement by degree.
Not many of Valens’ examples are as elaborately argued as this, and most
rather resemble the following, chosen somewhat at random, in their brevity:
11 Contemporary practitioners sometimes translate δαίμων daimōn as “spirit”: Good Spirit

(the eleventh place), Bad Spirit (the twelfth place), the Lot of Spirit.
CC BY 4.0 license.
Sun, Mercury, ascendant in Taurus; moon in Pisces; Saturn in Gemini;

Jupiter in Aquarius; Mars in Virgo; Venus in Aries. The Lot of Fortune in
Pisces; the moon there was aspected by Saturn and Mars. The rulers of
[the Lot of] the Daimon and of the [preceding] full moon were opposed.
That man expired [from drowning] in bilge water.12
Once again, only the sign placements of the ascendant, planets, and some
additional points are given, or even just implied. Aspects are noted without
mention of distances in degrees; the lot calculations, while not precluding
measurement by degree, likewise agree with measurement by sign alone. It
is not stated whether the nativity, with the sun occupying the rising sign, was
diurnal or nocturnal (sect) – that is, whether the sun had actually risen – but
we may infer from the stated position of the Lot of Fortune that it was diurnal.13
Given the large number of such examples found both in the Anthologies and
elsewhere, it is perhaps not surprising that scholars should have concluded
that whole-sign places were the favoured method of Valens as well as of his
contemporaries. Nevertheless, as will be shown below, this conclusion does
not always hold up even with regard to “basic horoscopes” and thus needs to
be reconsidered. Before proceeding to those revealing anomalies, however,
we need to understand the two alternative methods of defining the places in
ancient astrology and the descriptions of them provided by Valens.
The mathematically simpler of these two methods is what I shall call equal
places (once more slightly modifying its standard designation in modern astro
logy, “equal houses”). Like whole-sign places, this method is based solely on
the horizon or ascendant and consists of thirty-degree segments measured
along the ecliptic; but the reference point (usually, but not always, the start-
ing point) for these segments is the rising degree itself rather than the first
degree of the rising sign (see fig. 2). As with the whole-sign method, the astro-
nomical midheaven – that is, the culminating point of the ecliptic, intersecting
the meridian above the horizon – will, at the latitudes for which most ancient
horoscopes were cast, fall either in the tenth place or in one of the adjacent
(ninth or eleventh) places. This variation is caused by the oscillating motion
12 Vett. Val. II 41,77–80: Ἥλιος, Ἑρμῆς, ὡροσκόπος Ταύρῳ, Σελήνη Ἰχϑύσιν, Κρόνος Διδύμοις,
Ζεὺς Ὑδροχόῳ, Ἄρης Παρϑένῳ, Ἀφροδίτη Κριῷ. ὁ κλῆρος τῆς τύχης Ἰχϑύσιν· ἐκεῖ Σελήνη ὑπὸ
Κρόνου καὶ Ἄρεως ϑεωρουμένη. <ὁ> κύριος τοῦ δαίμονος καὶ τῆς πανσελήνου ἠναντιώϑη. ὁ
τοιοῦτος ἐν ἀντλίᾳ ἐτελεύτα. The nativity most nearly agrees with 4 May, 88 ce. The preced-
ing full moon would fall in Scorpio; the Lot of the Daimon, in Cancer.
13 The Lot of Fortune is normally calculated by measuring the ecliptical distance from the
sun to the moon (in zodiacal order) by day, vice versa at night, and projecting the same
distance from the ascendant. The Lot of the Daimon, by contrast, is normally measured
from the moon to the sun by day, vice versa at night.
8 Gansten
of the ecliptic across the horizon over the course of a day – sometimes rising to
the north-east, sometimes to the south-east of the place of observation – due
to its obliquity relative to the equator.
Equal places are described unambiguously only once in the Anthologies, in
its last book. Like the description of quadrant places discussed below, this sec-
tion refers to an earlier textual authority by name:
25°
X IX
XI VIII
XII VII
I VI
II V
III IV
Figure 2 Equal places. The places are segments of 30° on the ecliptic, measured with
reference to the ascendant degree. The culminating degree (midheaven) may or
may not fall in the tenth place.
On this matter, Asclepius, setting it in motion, composed the most, and

then many others of the Egyptians and Chaldeans; and likewise on the
eight-turning [model].
Whence, then, the places from the ascendant are apprehended as
follows. The 1st is life and the foundation of the years and the spirit of the
soul (that is, the ascendant itself); from the [place] of brothers, it is
the Good Daimon and the place of friends; from [the place of] parents, [it
CC BY 4.0 license.
is the place] of action; from [the place of] wife, the marriage-bringing
[place]; from [the place of] children, the ninth.14
This is followed by simple instructions for calculation which have a direct

bearing on our next topic and will be discussed below under that heading. The
reference to Asclepius suggests that these instructions derived from an earlier
source. The “eight-turning model” (ὀκτάτροπος oktatropos) presumably refers
to an abridged version of the place system, comprising only the first eight
places, also mentioned by other classical authors.15
The shifting perspectives demonstrated in the second paragraph recur
in the descriptions of each of the twelve places. By changing the point of refer-
ence, every place may be invested with a number of secondary meanings. For
example, with reference to the third place from the ascendant, which signifies
brothers, the ascendant itself – counting inclusively – becomes the eleventh
place, known as the Good Daimon and signifying friends: therefore the ascend-
ant is the place of brothers’ friends, and so on.
The last method of place division differs from the previous two by using the
midheaven degree to define the tenth place, just as the ascendant degree
defines the first. These two points together with their opposite poles (the
descendant and lower midheaven) form two axes, which in three-dimensional
reality are the great circles of the horizon and meridian, respectively, inter-
secting the ecliptic and dividing the celestial sphere equally into quadrants.
Each quadrant is then trisected – in the version discussed by Valens, along the
ecliptic – to form twelve places in all (see fig. 3). I shall refer to this method
simply as quadrant places.
Although the order in which Valens presents his doctrines should not
be overemphasized, it is worth noting that his early chapter on finding the
ascendant (I 4) is immediately followed by one on finding the astronomical
midheaven (I 5).16 The calculation of the intermediate places – a simple opera-
tion by comparison – is likewise detailed fairly early on (III 2). Quadrant places
and angles are then explicitly used in several sections of the work, as we shall
14 Vett. Val. IX 3,5–7: ἐκ ταύτης γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀσκληπιὸς κινηϑεὶς συνέταξε τὰ πλείστα καὶ ἕτεροι δὲ
πολλοὶ Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ Χαλδαίων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ <ἐκ> τῆς ὀκτατρόπου.
Ὅϑεν δὴ οἱ τόποι ἀπὸ ὡροσκόπου λαμβάνονται οὕτως. τὸ α′ ζωὴ καὶ ὑπόστασις τῶν χρόνων
καὶ τὸ ψυχικὸν πνεῦμα (τουτέστιν αὐτὸς ὁ ὡροσκόπος), τοῦ δὲ περὶ ἀδελφῶν ὁ αγαϑὸς δαίμων
καὶ [τέκνων καὶ] φίλων τόπος, γονέων δὲ ὁ πρακτικός, γυναικὸς δὲ γαμοστόλος, τέκνων ἔνατος.
My translation omits the phrase bracketed by Pingree (“children and”).
15 For a summary (though now somewhat dated) of scholarly discussions of the oktatropos,
see Hübner, Dodekatropos, 92–95. Cf. also the list of eight places in Firm. Math. II 14,3–4,
cited in note 34 below.
16 Although the arithmetical approximation described by Valens does not reliably produce
an astronomically correct result, it is clearly intended to find the culminating degree.
10 Gansten
X
IX
XI
VIII
XII
VII
I
VI
II
V
III
IV
Figure 3 Quadrant places. The ascendant and culminating degrees define the first and
tenth places, respectively. The non-angular places are defined by trisecting
the resulting quadrants.
see below.17 By contrast, equal places are explicitly described only near the end
of the Anthologies (IX 3).
Two points of particular interest in Valens’ exposition of quadrant places are,
first, that they are referred to using the same standard nomenclature already
met with above and commonly associated in contemporary scholarship with
whole-sign places; and second, that Valens briefly mentions an earlier work as
his source for these calculations:
But to me it seems more natural to proceed in this manner: taking the

distance from the ascending degree to the [angle] below the earth, calcu-
lating a 3rd as described, and measuring from the ascending [degree] in
17 Pace Greenbaum (Daimon, 400, n. 6), who states: “Yet all of Valens’ chart delineations use
a one place/one sign system (thanks to Robert Hand for bringing this to my attention).”

CC BY 4.0 license.
order, to judge [these] degrees and those opposite them to be powerful,

but again to judge the other [two-thirds] part of the degrees to be
middling – neither full [good] nor poor – being [first] succedent to
the ascendant and [then] the Goddess and opposite the God. The 1st
3rd of the degrees from the ascendant, then, will be effective and power
ful, the next 3rd part middling, and the next 3rd [again] harmful and poor.
The stars will act in accordance with these. It is also necessary <to regard
the 1st 3rd> from the [degree] of the midheaven as also being of the angular
class, the next as of the succedent, whence it was named Good Daimon
by the ancients, and the remaining 3rd, up to the degree cadent from the
ascendant, as injurious and ineffective. The [parts] opposite these will
work in the same way.
Orion set all this out in [his] book.18
Here we see the opposing third and ninth quadrant places referred to as the
Goddess and the God, respectively, and the eleventh quadrant place, following
the midheaven, as the Good Daimon. There is no indication that these divi-
sions are meant to constitute anything but the standard places going by those
names. Stephan Heilen tentatively dates the Orion mentioned here to the first
century either bce or ce, suggesting that he may be identical with an astro-
nomical author on solar eclipses, and further that an alphanumeric could be
missing before the word βιβλίῳ bibliō, so that the original meaning may have
been, for instance, “in the third book.”19 An early origin of quadrant-based
places is consistent with the fact that both horizon and meridian played a
18 Vett. Val. III 2,15–20: Ἔδοξε δέ μοι φυσικώτερον οὕτως ἔχειν. τὸ μὲν διάστημα ἀπὸ τῆς ὡροσκο-
πούσης μοίρας ἕως τοῦ ὑπογείον λαμβάνοντα, καὶ τούτων τὸ γ′ λογισάμενον καϑὼς πρόκειται,
καὶ ἀπολύσαντα ἀπὸ τῆς ὡροσκοπούσης κατὰ τὸ ἑξῆς, κρίνειν δυναστικὰς μοίρας καὶ τὰς τούτων
διαμέτρους, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον * μέρος τῶν μοιρῶν κρίνειν πάλιν μέσον – μήτε πλέον ἀγαϑὸν μήτε
φαῦλον – διὰ τὴν ἐπαναφορὰν τοῦ ὡροσκόπου καὶ τὴν ϑεάν καὶ τὸ διάμετρον τοῦ ϑεοῦ. ἔσται
οὖν τὸ μὲν α′ γ′ μέρος τῶν ἀφ’ ὡροσκόπου μοιρῶν χρηματιστικὸν καὶ δυναστικόν, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον γ′
μέρος μέσον, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον γ′ αἰτιατικὸν καὶ φαῦλον· κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες ἐνεργήσουσιν.
δεῖ καὶ <τὸ αʹ γʹ> ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ μεσουρανήματος καὶ τῆς κεντρικῆς τάξεως <ἡγεῖσϑαι>, τὸ δὲ
ἕτερον τῆς ἐπαναφορᾶς, καϑὸ καὶ παρὰ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἀγαϑοδαίμων ὠνομάσϑη, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν γ′
ἕως <τῆς> τοῦ ὡροσκόπου ἀποκεκλικυίας μοίρας κακωτικὸν καὶ ἀχρημάτιστον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ
τούτων διάμετρα συνεπισχύσει.
Ταῦτα πάντα καὶ ὁ Ὠρίων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ ἐξέϑετο. I have removed Pingree’s mistakenly
added <γ′> from the place marked with an asterisk. In the antepenultimate sentence
I have accepted László’s suggested improvements (“Third-Sections,” 4–7) on Pingree’s
emended text, chiefly for reasons of sense, but secondarily to demonstrate that our differ-
ences of interpretation are not contingent on text-critical issues.
19 See Heilen, Hadriani genitura, 690–91, n. 1469, citing Jones, Ptolemy’s First Commentator, 17.

12 Gansten
role in the pre-horoscopic Egyptian use of decans that underlies the system
of places.20
3 What Is a Sign?
Unlike the systems of equal and quadrant places, whole-sign places are never
formally defined in the surviving ancient manuals of astrology.21 The con-
tention that whole signs were nevertheless the standard system of places in
ancient horoscopy – not just in the sense of being the most common day-to-day
practice, but in the full normative sense – rests on two observations. One
is the prevalence of recorded horoscope descriptions and diagrams giving only
the sign placements of the ascendant and of some or all planets (the “basic
horoscope” model), as discussed above, forming the basis of an argument from
silence.22 The other is the fact that the places are sometimes explicitly referred
20 See Greenbaum and Ross, Role of Egypt, 155: “Just as the rising decans provide a precursor
to the ascendant, the ‘transit’ decans presage the astrological mid-heaven, the second-
most [sic] important of the cardines after the ascendant.” Transit decans, attested as early
as a millennium before the rise of horoscopic astrology, are based on true culmination,
casting strong doubt on the claim of Hand (“Signs as Houses,” 141) that it is a “fact that in
the course of the evolution of astronomy and astrology the midheaven came largely to
supplant the nonagesimal [= the ecliptical point 90° prior to the ascendant, marking the
tenth equal place] as the other most important point of a chart after the ascendant.” The
first-century Astronomica of Manilius, while somewhat outside the scope of this paper,
likewise confirms an early use of the culminating point in defining the horoscopic places
(see Manil. 2.788–970, Astronomica [transl. Goold], 145–59).
21 László (“Third-Sections,” 1) chooses to interpret this fact as an indirect support of the
whole-sign-place position: “It seems that the identification of places with entire signs was
such a commonplace among astrologers, that only Sextus Empiricus, an astrology skeptic,
and the anonymous author of the basic treatise beginning as ‘Of the Celestial Disposition,’
an apparently late astrologer, felt compelled to give formal definitions.” In view of the highly
commonplace nature of many astrological doctrines which are still included in all the
manuals (such as the names and arrangements of the zodiacal signs and their rulership
schemes), this argument strikes me as less than convincing. It further makes the assump-
tion of a whole-sign system nearly unfalsifiable, as both the presence and the absence of a
formal definition can apparently be interpreted in its favour. (The late, anonymous defini-
tion cited by László [“Third-Sections,” 1] is perhaps not as clear-cut as suggested, speaking
as it does of Gemini “culminating in the midheaven” while Cancer succeeds it and Taurus
declines from it: culmination sensu stricto forms no part of whole-sign places. I have not,
however, seen the Greek text, for which no reference is given.)
22 The generally unstated argument runs something like this: a horoscope as given should
contain all information used by the astrologer/author in judging it; most preserved
ancient horoscopes do not contain the information needed to calculate places by degree;
therefore places by degree were not used. However, as “basic horoscopes” leave out sev-
eral kinds of information, some of which were demonstrably used in judging them, the
CC BY 4.0 license.
to as “signs” (ζῴδιον zōdion; Latin signum) in normative texts. From time to

time, Valens, too, conforms to this pattern:
Effective and productive signs are the ascendant, midheaven, Good

Daimon, Good Fortune, Lot of Fortune, Daimon, Love, Necessity. Middling
ones are God, Goddess, and the remaining two angles. The remaining ones
are mediocre or bad.23
Such statements may at first seem an unanswerable argument for the places
being identified with the signs of the zodiac, making an open-and-shut case,24
and claims favouring this position therefore tend to take the form of simple
lists of textual passages where the places are referred to as “signs.”25 However, a
closer look at some such passages reveals conceptual problems. A case in point
is the following statement by Valens (emphases added):
If the benefics are in the sign of the Good Daimon, appropriately situated
or in their proper faces, they make men illustrious and wealthy from youth,
more so if also aspecting the Lot of Fortune by a trine figure from the
dexter side and the ascendant by sextile.26
premise itself is doubtful – pace Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 370), who calls the pre
valence of such horoscopes “[o]ne of the most compelling pieces of evidence about the
pervasiveness of whole sign houses in the Hellenistic tradition.” I shall return to this ques-
tion in my conclusion below.
23 Vett. Val. IV 11,49: χρηματιστικὰ μὲν οὖν καὶ ἐνεργητικὰ ζῴδιά ἐστιν ὡροσκόπος, μεσουράνημα,
ἁγαϑὸς δαίμων, ἁγαϑὴ τύχη, κλῆρος τύχης, δαίμων, ἔρως, ἀνάγκη· μέσα δὲ ϑεός, ϑεὰ καὶ τὰ
λοιπὰ δύο κέντρα· μέτρια δὲ καὶ κακωτικὰ τὰ λοιπά. Good Daimon, Good Fortune, God,
and Goddess are the standard designations of the eleventh, fifth, ninth, and third places,
respectively (three of which were also mentioned above in connection with quadrant
places; see note 18). In this particular case, the use of the word “signs” is arguably due to
the context, which is the prognostic technique of annual transmission (παράδοσις para
dosis), where significant points symbolically progress by one zodiacal sign per year. This
would also explain the inclusion of the four enumerated lots (Fortune, Daimon, Love, and
Necessity), which are not part of the twelve-place system, among the “signs” – despite
their being points rather than segments of longitude, as mentioned above and confirmed
elsewhere in the Anthologies. For a detailed study of these lots (also combined with the
places in Vett. Val. II 16), see Greenbaum, Daimon, 279–388.
24 This argument is explicitly made, for instance, in László, “Third-Sections,” 1–2, and
rehearsed at length in Brennan, Hellenistic Astrology, 374–414.
25 For an extensive if not exhaustive list of this type, see Heilen, Hadriani genitura, 691ff.
(including copious notes).
26 Vett. Val. II 6,1: Ἔὰν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγαϑοδαιμονοῦντος ζῳδίου ὦσιν οἱ ἀγαϑοποιοὶ ἐπιτόπως κείμενοι ἢ
ἐν ἰδίοις προσώποις, ἐπιφανεῖς καὶ πλουσίους ἐκ νεότητος ποιοῦσιν, πλείω δὲ καὶ τὸν κλῆρον τῆς
τύχης ἐπιϑεωρήσαντες ἐν τριγώνῳ μέρει καὶ τὸν ὡροσκόπον καϑ’ ἑξάγωνον.
14 Gansten
Although “sign” (ζῳδίου zōdiou) is used here of the eleventh place, its forming a
sextile with the ascendant is described not as a necessary corollary, as it would
be using whole-sign places, but rather as a potential amplifying factor.27 The
implication is that a planet may occupy the eleventh place without aspecting
the ascendant – a possible scenario only if either equal or quadrant places are
used, with the occupying planet being located in the zodiacal sign adjacent to,
and therefore not configured with, the sign containing the rising degree (see
fig. 4–6). But assuming that such a system was in fact intended, how do we
explain the use of the word “sign” in the sense of “place”?
25°
13°
09°
Figure 4 Whole-sign places. Jupiter in the eleventh place necessarily aspects the
ascendant by sextile.
27 Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 382), citing the former clause of the same passage in
support of his claim that Valens advocated whole-sign places, omits this revealing lat-
ter clause. The conditional force of the participial construction (that is, the meaning
“if” rather than “as”) is evident from the inclusion of the Lot of Fortune, which may be
located anywhere in a horoscope and thus need not be aspected at all. The text goes on to
CC BY 4.0 license.
10°
13°
Figure 5 Equal places. Jupiter in the eleventh place does not necessarily aspect the
ascendant, although it may do so.
The whole-sign-place interpretation is based on the generally tacit assumption

that the word zōdion/signum as a technical term has a single meaning which
has remained constant over two millennia, always and only denoting the divi-
sions known as Aries, Taurus, etc., whereas the word τόπος topos (Latin locus)
began as a designation for the same divisions (when viewed from a particular
perspective, or used for particular purposes) but gradually underwent a shift
in meaning. Against this assumption, I would suggest a hypothesis with greater
explanatory power to be that zōdion/signum (the meaning of which is simply
“image”)28 was initially a more fluid term than it later became, and was applied
mention occupation of “hearing” and “beholding” signs as indicating still more (πλεῖστα
pleista) beneficial outcomes.
28 Although the etymological meaning of ζῴδιον zōdion is “small animal,” the Latin transla-
tion prevalent since the ancient period demonstrates the more general sense of “image”
in astrological usage (the Greek word is also used of statuettes and the like).
16 Gansten
13°
Figure 6 Quadrant places. Jupiter in the eleventh place does not necessarily aspect
the ascendant, although it may do so.
to at least two related but separate concepts: the twelvefold division begin-
ning with Aries, inherited from Babylonian proto-astrology, and the twelvefold
division beginning with the ὡροσκόπος hōroskopos or ascendant – that is, the
places. The latter type of division would then have been modelled on, but not
identical with, the former and older one. Although we cannot know exactly
how this happened, it seems reasonable to assume that the notion of a “sign”
as an arc of 30° – one twelfth of the ecliptic – led first to the system of equal
places, which was then modified by the pre-existing tradition that included
the culminating point, resulting in quadrant places.
Do we have any textual evidence explicitly supporting the hypothesis of
“sign” being used in such a fluid way? In fact we do, and one passage comes
to us from Valens himself. It is found in the exposition of equal places in the
ninth book of the Anthologies, where he invoked the authority of Asclepius as
described above (emphasis added):

CC BY 4.0 license.
First of all, it is necessary to calculate the places by degree, and, once

the degree of the ascendant has been determined, to count from that
same degree up to the completion of a thirty-degree [arc], the subsequent
sign;29 and that will be the place of life.30 Then likewise up to the comple-
tion of the next 30 degrees, [the place] of livelihood, and so on in order.
And often two places, falling together in one sign, demonstrate both
qualities according to their extensions in degrees. Likewise, [it is neces-
sary] to consider the ruler of the sign, <in> what sign it happens to be and
what place it rules, according to its tabular position by degree. In this way
the situation is easily discerned and judged. And if roughly one place is
calculated for each sign (which is rare) […].31
Alongside “sign” in the commonly acknowledged sense, we have here an explicit

reference to a sign (ζῳδίου zōdiou) as a unit of thirty degrees (τριακονταμοίρου
triakontamoirou) measured not from the first point of Aries, but from the
29 The two genitives τριακονταμοίρου triakontamoirou and ζῳδίου zōdiou might, as sug-
gested by one anonymous reviewer of the present article, be read not in apposition but
with the latter qualifying the former, giving the meaning “up to the completion of [the]
thirty-degree [arc] of the subsequent sign.” As indicated by parallel instances in Ptol. Apot.
I 12,3 (τό τε πρῶτον […] τριακοντάμοιρον (τὸ τοῦ Καρκίνου)) and the corresponding Procl.
Par. Ptol. I 14 (τὸ […] τριακοντάμοιρον τοῦ ♋ [= Καρκίνου]), this would then be most natu-
rally understood as an explicative genitive, “of” having the sense of “constituting,” so that
the meaning would remain substantially the same. However, as Valens’ phrase stands,
with τριακονταμοίρου lacking a definite article, I consider the appositive rendering given
here to be the least intrusive option. As will be shown immediately below, the mean-
ing agrees with usages found both in Firmicus Maternus (probably drawing on the same
source as Valens) and, in a somewhat broader sense, in Ptolemy.
30 Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 154) paraphrases this sentence in such a way as to omit the
crucial definition of a sign: “First of all, it is necessary to calculate the positions of the
Places in degrees: count from whatever point has been determined to be the Ascendant
until you have completed the 30° of the first Place; this will be the Place of Life.” Brennan
(Hellenistic Astrology, 396) reproduces this simplified version without comment.
31 Vett. Val. IX 3,21–25: Πρὸ πάντων δὲ τοὺς τόπους μοιρικῶς δεῖ λογίζεσϑαι· καὶ ὁπόταν γε ἡ τοῦ
ὡροσκόπου μοῖρα καταληφϑῇ, ἀπ’ ἐκείνης τῆς μοίρας ἐξαριϑμεῖν ἕως συμπληρώσεως τριακο-
νταμοίρου τοῦ ἑξῆς ζῳδίου. καὶ ἐκεῖνος ἔσται περὶ ζωῆς τόπος· εἶϑ᾽ ὁμοίως ἕως συμπληρώσεως
ἄλλων μοιρῶν λ̅ περὶ βίου, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς ὡς πρόκειται. πολλάκις γὰρ εἰς ἓν ζῴδιον δύο τόποι συνε-
μπεσόντες ἀμφότερα τὰ εἴδη προδηλοῦσι κατὰ <τὰς> μοιρικὰς ἀυτῶν διαστάσεις. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ
τὸν κύριον τοῦ ζῳδίου σκοπεῖν <ἐν> ποίῳ ζῳδίῳ τυγχάνει ἢ ποῖον τόπον διακρατεῖ κατὰ τὴν
ἑαυτοῦ μοιρικὴν κανονογραφίαν· οὕτως γὰρ εὐσύνοπτος ὁ τρόπος κριϑήσεται. εἰ δέ τις πλατικῶς
καϑ᾽ ἕκαστον ζῴδιον ἕνα τόπον λογίζοιτο (ὅπερ ἐστὶ σπάνιον) […]. As pointed out by László
(“Third-Sections,” 9–10), the remainder of the final sentence in the received text seems
corrupt, having apparently migrated from an earlier part of the Anthologies (first noted in
Schmidt, “Problem of House Division,” 60–61).

18 Gansten
rising degree; and a sign in this latter sense is also unambiguously defined
as a horoscopic place (topos).32 These features recur in another systematic
description of equal places, which is about two centuries later and in Latin,
but similar enough in content for a common source to be suspected (possibly
the Asclepius text alluded to by Valens): in his Mathesis, Firmicus Maternus
offers a description of the twelve places in which signum alternates repeatedly
with locus to denote divisions that are explicitly reckoned by degree from the
ascendant. The relevant section begins:
The first is the place, [that is], that degree (pars) in which the ascendant
is established. In this place the life and spirit of men is encompassed;
from this place the foundations of the entire nativity become known.
This place extends its power from that degree in which the ascendant
was through the remaining 30 degrees. It is, moreover, the first angle and
the structure and substance of the entire nativity.33
To Firmicus, then, the first place is strictly speaking the ascending degree, which
extends its influence over the next thirty degrees.34 Similar descriptions of
32 It may not be out of place to mention here that “sign” is still used colloquially by contem-
porary astrologers as a unit of measurement comprising 30°, so that a point located at 7°
Taurus is said to be exactly one sign ahead of a point at 7° Aries, etc.
33 Firm. Math. II 19,2: Primus est locus [idest] illa pars, in qua horoscopus est constitutus. In
hoc loco vita hominum et spiritus continetur, ex hoc loco totius geniturae fundamenta nos
cuntur, hic locus ab ea parte, in qua fuerit horoscopus, vires suas per residuas partes XXX
extendit. Est autem cardo primus et totius geniturae compago atque substantia.
34 Hand (“Signs as Houses,” 143ff.) attempts to make a case for this description being ambi
guous by reinterpreting “the remaining 30 degrees” as “the rest of the thirty degrees of
a sign” (emphasis in the original) so as to support whole-sign places. This tendentious
exegesis can, however, be confidently ruled out as contradicting an earlier statement from
the same book forewarning the reader of the distinction (Firm. Math. II 14,3–4): “The
place of life is roughly [located] in that sign in which the ascendant is established, that
of hope or property in the second sign from the ascendant, that of brothers in the third,
that of parents in the fourth, that of children in the fifth, that of illness in the sixth, that
of the spouse in the seventh, that of death in the eighth. […] But as we have said above, it
suffices to have related these things roughly to sketch the beginnings for the student; later,
indeed, we shall take care to explain how far these places are appointed by the accurate
boundaries of degrees” (Platice vitae locus est in eo signo, in quo est horoscopus constitutus,
spei vel pecuniae in secundo horoscopi signo, fratrum in tertio, parentum in quarto, filio
rum in quinto, valitudinis in sexto, coniugis in septimo, mortis in octavo. […] Sed haec, sicut
superius diximus, platice ad informanda initia discentis dixisse sufficiat; postea vero, qua
tenus haec loca suptili partium definitione monstrantur, explicare curabimus). We may note
here Firmicus’ repeated use of the Greek loanword platice (= πλατικῶς platikōs) “roughly,”
contrasted with the “accurate” use of degrees just as in Valens’ Anthologies. In Hand’s

CC BY 4.0 license.
each of the remaining eleven places are then given, in which the words “place”
(locus) and “sign” (signum) are used interchangeably of such thirty-degree seg-
ments, and of which it is enough to quote one (emphases added):
The sixth place is established in the 6th sign from the ascendant, which
[place], taking its beginning from the 150th degree from the ascendant,
extends up to the 180th. In this sign we shall find the cause of blemish
and illness.35
A similar terminological fluidity is found in Claudius Ptolemy’s Apotelesmatics

(more commonly known as the Tetrabiblos), although the main focus there
is on the word δωδεκατημόριον dōdekatēmorion “twelfth-part,” employed lib-
erally throughout the work to refer to the twelve signs beginning with Aries.36
Ptolemy’s idiosyncratic and largely naturalistic approach to astrology involved
little use of the places, but when they are briefly defined with reference to the
ascending degree (in the context of determining the ἀφέτης aphetēs or main
significator of life), they too are called twelfth-parts:
First one must consider those places aphetic in which it is always neces-
sary for that [point] to be which is to take up rulership of the aphesis: the
twelfth-part around the ascendant, from the five degrees rising before
the horizon itself and up to the remaining twenty-five degrees rising after
it, and those [degrees] in dexter sextile to these 30 degrees (those of the
Good Daimon), and in square ([those] of the midheaven above the earth),
and trine ([those] of the [twelfth-part] called God), and opposite ([those]
of the setting [twelfth-part]) […]37
interpretation, no such distinction would exist: the counting of degrees, repeated for
every place, would be a pointless exercise merely leading the reader back to the sign-only
model that Firmicus explicitly reserves for beginning learners.
35 Firm. Math. II 19,7: Sextus locus in VI. ab horoscopo signo constituitur; qui a CL. parte horo
scopi initium accipiens usque ad CLXXX. extenditur. In hoc signo causam vitii ac valitudinis
inveniemus.
36 For just some examples, see Ptol. Apot. I 13, I 17, II 11, where the word recurs frequently in
this sense.
37 Ptol. Apot. III 11,3: τόπους μὲν πρῶτον ἡγητέον ἀφετικοὺς ἐν οἷς εἶναι δεῖ πάντως τὸν μέλλοντα
τὴν κυρίαν τῆς ἀφέσεως λαμβάνειν τό τε περὶ τὸν ὡροσκόπον δωδεκατημόριον, ἀπὸ πέντε μοι-
ρῶν τῶν προαναφερομένων αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὁρίζοντος μέχρι τῶν λοιπῶν καὶ ἐπαναφερομένων μοιρῶν
εἴκοσι πέντε καὶ τὰς ταύταις ταῖς λ′ μοίραις δεξιὰς ἑξαγώνους (τὰς τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ δαίμονος) καὶ
τετραγώνους (τοῦ ὑπὲρ γῆν μεσουρανήματος) καὶ τριγώνους (τοῦ καλουμένου ϑεοῦ) καὶ διαμέ-
τρους (τοῦ δύνοντος) […].

20 Gansten
While Ptolemy’s style is characteristically terse, it is clear that he is describing

essentially the same equal-place system as Valens and Firmicus, albeit with
a displacement of 5° – each place comprising 30° in all and thus constitut-
ing a twelfth-part of the ecliptic, parallel to but distinct from the twelfth-parts
beginning from the first point of Aries.38 In light of this passage, we may fur-
ther suspect the same ambiguity in the term dōdekatēmorion as used in other
parts of Ptolemy’s work, although these can be more open to interpretation,
such as the following:
[…] the twelfth-part of Aries and also that of Libra were considered to be
masculine and diurnal […] those following them conforming in order as
we said.
But some also employ the order of masculine and feminine by making
the beginning of the masculine from the rising twelfth-part, which they
call the ascendant.39
38 Here, too, Hand (“Signs as Houses,” 146 ff.) wants to problematize the text and claims that
reading τε te or τε καὶ te kai before the phrase τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ δαίμονος tou agathou daimonos
with some text witnesses instead of τὰς tas (“in dexter sextile to these 30 degrees and
of the Good Daimon”) would make it support some unspecified system of places other
than the equal one, with the extra condition of aspects to particular degrees added –
an argument first made by Robert Schmidt (Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, 30–31). Such a forced
interpretation is, however, difficult to harmonize with the remainder of the sentence
(not quoted by Hand, who breaks off after the phrase in question), and even Robbins
(Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, 272–73), who did read te at the critical place, did not consider it.
Hand (“Signs as Houses,” 148) further claims that the passage under consideration “is not
a description of a system of places, but a description of locations or degrees in the chart
in which an aphetic point may be found.” As the text not only refers explicitly to those
locations as “places” (τόπους topous), but even names four of them using standard place
designations such as “the Good Daimon,” such claims may be safely ignored. Using the
twelve-place system to define the aphetic places is in fact standard practice across ancient
sources – including Valens’ Anthologies (III 1–3), with passages apparently quoted from
“Petosiris” – and there is nothing to indicate that Ptolemy deviated from that practice.
This matter will be further addressed below. Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 385), citing
another passage that refers to the places as twelfth-parts (Ptol. Apot. III 4,7), claims that
“Ptolemy should say ‘places’ here if he was using some other approach to house division
besides whole sign houses.” As the text demonstrably does use the term “twelfth-part” to
signify other divisions than whole signs not long afterwards, this assumption is clearly
incorrect. Rather, the meaning of the word must be determined, as far as possible, from
the context in each case.
39 Ptol. Apot. I 13,2–3: […] τὸ μὲν τοῦ Κριοῦ δωδεκατημόριον καὶ ἔτι τὸ τῶν Χηλῶν ἀρρενικά τε
ἔδοξε καὶ ἡμερινά […] τὰ δὲ ἐφεξῆς ἀυτῶν ἀκολούϑως τῇ γαρ’ ἓν ὡς ἔφαμεν τάξει.
χρῶνται δέ τινες τῇ τάξει τῶν ἀρρενικῶν καὶ ϑηλυκῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνατέλλοντος δωδεκατη-
μορίου, ὃ δὴ καλοῦσιν ὡροσκοποῦν, τὴν ἁρχὴν τοῦ ἄρρενος ποιούμενοι.

CC BY 4.0 license.
In view of the above considerations, mere lists of textual passages using the
terms “sign” (or “twelfth-part”) and “place” interchangeably, from Valens or any
other ancient author, cannot in themselves be regarded as sufficient evidence
for a whole-sign-place interpretation. Each statement needs to be considered
on its own terms, in a contextually sensitive manner and with awareness of the
fact that the word zōdion/signum was sometimes used – across sources and
apparently, judging by the “Asclepius” reference, from an early period – to refer
to divisions other than those beginning with Aries.
4 Were Places by Degree Reserved for Particular Purposes?
A suggestion sometimes encountered in the recent literature is that whole-sign

places were the default system of ancient astrology generally, whereas places
calculated by degree (whether equal or quadrant places) were employed only
in special contexts, especially length-of-life calculations.40 A slightly more gen-
eralized version of this idea is that quadrant places in particular were used
solely for gauging the relative efficacy of planets and were not associated with
the particular topics of life assigned to the whole-sign places (the first place
relating to the body, the second to wealth and livelihood, the third to siblings,
and so on).41
40 The length-of-life connection is explicitly made, e.g., by László (“Third-Sections,” 3), and in
greater detail by Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 386–393). Brennan (370 and passim) also
insistently puts forward the notion that equal and quadrant places “were typically used as
a secondary overlay,” whereas whole-sign places were “primary.” Textual evidence demon-
strating such secondary overlay is, however, entirely absent, so that the notion itself has
the appearance of a superimposition of an imagined pervasive system of whole-sign
places on to passages actually detailing other approaches.
41 See, e.g., Greenbaum, Daimon, 400, n. 6: “But the whole sign/place system showed areas
of life, while the rising or culminating angles (and those that set and anti-culminated)
described the relative strength or power of signs or planets within that system. […]
Olympiodorus, Paulus’s 6th-century commentator, appears to be the first of the
Hellenistic astrologers to suggest that the quadrant system […] be used for the places
as significators of areas of life.” Among contemporary practitioners, similar claims made
about medieval Arabic astrologers have created a narrative of their being chiefly respon-
sible for conflating the originally separate domains of these systems by misapplying
the quadrant-place method to topics of life. One cannot fail to note here the echoes of
early modern European authors who, in their desire to recreate a pure Greek astrology,
denounced all non-Ptolemaic doctrines as “Arabian accretions.” While Ptolemy is no
longer held up as its original source, simplistic and monolithic representations of ancient
astrology remain seductive but misleading.

22 Gansten
Such claims tend to invoke the fact that, in the textual sources, places expli
citly calculated by degree figure most prominently in connection with certain
prognostic procedures, notably those relating to the length of life. Although
context is important and can be illuminating, it is wise to treat this type of
argument with caution. This is particularly the case with the Anthologies,
which are notoriously disorganized. Valens himself remarked on the rambling
structure of his work:
Even if the same matters seem to be spoken of repeatedly, it makes no dif-

ference. For happening upon things, I put them together with what was
there before in the sudden fervour of discovery (for one writing, espe-
cially about these matters, is inspired, and seems to be conversing with
God) […]42
Nevertheless, it is true that Valens and Ptolemy both outline systems of calcu-
lating places by degree in the context of length-of-life procedures, although
they are different systems: quadrant places in the former case, equal places
in the latter. This is a circumstance of some interest, but in no way suggests
that the places so calculated were divorced from the topics typically associated
with the dōdekatropos. The places in ancient astrology – however defined –
have multiple uses which are not only mutually compatible but closely related;
and the positive or negative topics associated with them largely mirror their
frequent classification as “effective” (χρηματιστικός chrēmatistikos) or “ineffec-
tive,” a specialized application of which is lists of aphetic places.43
The explicit focus on positions by degree in connection with longevity pro
gnostication is in fact conditioned by the technique that was predominantly
used for such prognostication, typically known as ἄφεσις aphesis or περίπατος
peripatos, and in medieval and early modern times as (primary) direction.
Unlike Valens’ favoured method of general prognostication, which equates
42 Vett. Val. VI 1,19: εἰ δὲ δοκεῖ πολλάκις περὶ τῶν ἀυτῶν λέγεσϑαι, ἀδιάφορον· ἃ μὲν γὰρ ἐντυγχά-
νων τοῖς προγενομένοις συνέτασσον διὰ τὸ τῆς ἐπιϑυμίας καὶ εὑρέσεως αἰφνίδιον (ἐνϑουσιᾷ γὰρ ὁ
συγγράφων, μάλιστα δὲ περὶ τούτων, καὶ ϑεῷ προσομιλεῖν δοκεῖ) […]
43 Cf. the list given in note 23 above with the discussions of aphetic places in Vett. Val. III 1
and Ptol. Apot. III 11. Even Ptolemy, whose general approach to horoscopy largely ignores
the places, connects the sixth place (τὸ προδύνον to produnon “that before the descendant”)
with illness and injury in the standard manner in Apot. III 13,1, shortly after defining them
by degree in III 11 as noted above (note 37). Similarly, the tenth and eleventh places (mid-
heaven and Good Daimon) and the places opposite them are associated with children at
IV 6,1, and the twelfth place (Evil Daimon) with slaves at IV 7,10. Nowhere does the text
offer any other definition of the places than that of thirty-degree increments with refer-
ence to the ascending degree.

CC BY 4.0 license.
each zodiacal sign with a year of life,44 this technique equates each equato-
rial degree with a year of life. It is therefore not surprising that in the section
of the Anthologies predominantly concerned with it (III 3–5), we find several
example nativities giving both angles and planetary positions to the degree,
and sometimes to the minute of arc. One such example may be instanced here:
Sun in degree 25;8 of Pisces; moon in degree 16;53 of Gemini; Saturn in

degree 1;25 of Pisces; Jupiter in degree 24;18 of Sagittarius; Mars in degree
21;8 of Taurus; Venus in degree 9 of Aquarius; Mercury in degree 12 of
Aries; ascendant 1[5] of Libra; midheaven 16 of Cancer. The luminar-
ies were cadent. The ascendant was apheta in the terms of Jupiter, and
Jupiter had fallen away [from an angle]. The nativity had no ruler. The
aphesis was up to the opposition of Mars, degree 21 in Scorpio, for Mars,
occupying the aphetic terms, destroyed [by] casting [its rays] into the
same terms. He expired in his 51st year.45
There is no reason to believe a different system of places to be presupposed

here than elsewhere in the text, any more than a different system of calculat-
ing planetary longitudes: it is simply the case that the demand for accuracy on
both counts is greater in the context of life-span prognostication than in many
others, so that more detailed information is presented. Furthermore, as will
be shown below, calculations by degree at least occasionally – and possibly
often – underlie even examples where those degrees are not explicitly listed.
In some cases it is evident that some other system than whole-sign places
is intended, but less certain whether that system is equal or quadrant places.
Such an instance is found in the second book of the Anthologies, not in connec-
tion with longevity or any special-purpose technique, but as part of a general
discussion of aspects (emphasis added):
44 Typically called παράδοσις paradosis by Valens, although his terminology is not entirely
consistent. A version of that method owing more to Ptolemy and Dorotheus than to
Valens later became known as annual profection.
45 Vett. Val. III 5,11–15: Ἥλιος Ἰχϑύων μοίρᾳ κε′ η′, Σελήνη Διδύμων μοίρᾳ ιϛ′ νγ′, Κρόνος Ἰχϑύων
μοίρᾳ α′ κε′, Ζεὺς Τοξότου κδ′ ιη′, Ἄρης Ταύρου κα′ η′, Ἀφροδίτη Ὑδροχόου μοίρᾳ ϑ′, Ἑρμῆς
Κριοῦ μοίρᾳ ιβ′, ὡροσκόπος Ζυγοῦ ι[ε]′, μεσουράνημα Καρκίνου ιϛ′. τὰ φῶτα ἀπέκλιναν. ὡρο-
σκόπος ἀφέτης ὁρίοις Διός, καὶ Ζεὺς παρέπεσεν· ἀνοικοδεσπότητος ἡ γένεσις. ἡ ἄφεσις ἕως τῆς
διαμέτρου Ἄρεως τῆς ἐν Σκορπίῳ μοίρας κα′· τοῖς γὰρ ἀφετικοῖς ὁρίοις ἐφεστὼς εἰς τὰ αὐτὰ ὅρια
βάλλων ἀνεῖλεν. ἐτελεύτα τῷ να′ ἔτει. From the arc of direction implied (51° of ascensional
times), Pingree’s bracketed value of 15° (ι[ε]′) Libra for the ascendant seems doubtful: it
is more likely that 10° (ι′) is correct and that the degree of the midheaven was incorrectly
calculated (cf. note 16). Such a mistake would not affect the principles involved.

24 Gansten
Jupiter squaring Mars, when one is in the ascendant and the other is in
the midheaven or in the Good Daimon, is strong.46
For two planets occupying the first and eleventh places (ascendant and Good
Daimon) by the whole-sign method, forming a square either to the degree or
even by sign alone is in fact impossible.47 If equal places are used, two planets
so placed can form a square by sign but not by degree; the latter is possible only
when using quadrant places (see fig. 7–9).
21°
26°
09°
20°
Figure 7 Whole-sign places. Jupiter in square aspect with Mars in the first place,
whether by sign alone or to the degree, can never occupy the eleventh.
46 Vett. Val. II 17,89: Ζεὺς Ἄρει τετράγωνος – ἐὰν ὁ μὲν ὡροσκοπῇ, ὁ δὲ μεσουρανῇ ἢ ἀγαϑοδαι-
μονῇ, ἰσχυρόν.
47 While this and other chapters of the Anthologies repeatedly state that aspects by exact
degree are highly efficacious (as will be discussed below), approximate aspect angles

CC BY 4.0 license.
09°
26°
20°
Figure 8 Equal places. Jupiter may occupy the eleventh place while squaring Mars in
the first by sign, but not to the degree.
Near the end of his work, in a chapter on the proper astronomical tables and
values to use, Valens once more states his general preference for places cal-
culated by degree, though without specifying whether these are quadrant or
equal places (emphasis added):
First of all, then, it is necessary to attend with all accuracy to the num-
bers of the sun and the moon and the 5 stars, the hour determining
<the> description of positions [of the stars] and their aspects to each
other, for it is from this [hour] that the ascendant is easily recognized
and established and the 12 places may be comprehended by degree. For
the examination that is thus manifestly accurate will bring acclaim to
formed across sign borders (e.g., a position at 29° Gemini approximating the square
between 1° Aries and 1° Cancer) are never employed by Valens.

26 Gansten
27°
27°
Figure 9 Quadrant places. Jupiter may occupy the eleventh place even while squaring
Mars in the first to the exact degree.
the forecasters; to the experts it validates the bad and the good for their
pleasure; and to those who wish the examination to be made it brings
eagerness, encouragement, and faith in what is being said.48
As the preponderance of “basic horoscopes,” listing only the positions of the

planets and ascendant, is often seen as a major argument for whole-sign
places having been the standard practice of ancient astrology, it is particularly
interesting to note instances in the Anthologies where such horoscopes are
48 Vett. Val. IX 12,13–14: Πρὸ πάντων οὖν δεῖ τοῖς ἀριϑμοῖς προσέχειν μετὰ πάσης ἀκριβείας Ἡλίου
τε καὶ Σελήνης καὶ τῶν ε̅ ἀστέρων, τῆς ὥρας <τὰς> σχηματογραφίας καὶ τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους
μαρτυρίας βραβευούσης· ἐκ γὰρ ἀυτῆς ὁ ὡροσκόπος εὐκατάληπτος τελίσκεται, οἵ τε ι̅β̅ τόποι
συνορῶνται μοιρικῶς. οὕτως γὰρ ἀκριβὴς ἡ ἐπίσκεψις φανεῖσα τοὺς μὲν προλέγοντας δοξάσει,
τοῖς δ᾽ ἐπισταμένοις ἐπισφραγίζει τὰ φαῦλα καὶ τὰ μὴ πρὸς ἡδονήν, τοῖς δὲ βουλομένοις τὴν
ἐπίσκεψιν ποιεῖσϑαι προϑυμίαν τινὰ καὶ προτροπὴν καὶ πίστιν τῶν λεγομένων ἀναλαμβάνει.

CC BY 4.0 license.
explicitly interpreted on the basis of other forms of division. One case invok-
ing the quadrant midheaven occurs in Valens’ discussion of prognostication by
rising times:
Sun, Mercury in Libra, moon in Aquarius, Saturn in Pisces, Jupiter in

Capricorn, Mars in Aries, Venus in Leo, ascendant in Cancer, clime 6. This
person, while rich, was exiled in his 47th year, for Saturn was effective at
the midheaven, 3, and the rising [time] of Pisces: 30 for Saturn and 17 for
Pisces, making 47.49
The midheaven in Pisces is not included in the initial list of positions but
is only brought up when it becomes interpretatively relevant. In principle, it is
thus entirely possible that Valens routinely calculated both primary angles by
degree when casting a nativity, even if they are not listed; whether or not this
was the case, it is clear that he sometimes did. Other instances of deceptively
simplistic “basic horoscopes” actually incorporating calculations by degree
will be discussed below.
It is pertinent to mention here that others have translated part of this pas-
sage differently on the strength of a conjecture made by Wilhelm Kroll in 1908.
Following the phrase “at the midheaven” (μεσουρανῶν, literally “midheavening”),
text witnesses have the letter γ, which, if intended as a numeral, means 3.
Pingree emended this to λ (30), whereas Kroll had chosen to replace it with
ϑ (9) – motivated, as his comment in the apparatus explains, by his assump-
tion of “Pisces being the ninth place.”50 Embellishing Kroll’s emended text
further, Schönberger and Knobloch thus translate “am 9. an Himmelsmitte”
and Riley, “at MC, the IX Place.”51 But it is not clear that the figure should be
49 Vett. Val. VII 6,111–114: Ἥλιος, Ἑρμῆς Ζυγῷ, Σελήνη Ὑδροχόῳ, Κρόνος Ἰχϑύσιν, Ζεὺς Αἰγοκέρωτι,
Ἄρης Κριῷ, Ἀφροδίτη Λέοντι, ὡροσκόπος Καρκίνῳ· κλίμα ϛ′. οὕτος πλούσιος ὑπάρχων περὶ τὸ
μζ′ ἔτος ἐξέπεσεν. ἐχρημάτισε γὰρ Κρόνος μεσουρανῶν γ* καὶ ἡ ἀναφορὰ τῶν Ἰχϑύων – Κρόνου
μὲν λ̅ , Ἰχϑύων δὲ ι̅ζ·̅ γίνονται μ̅ ζ.̅ As discussed in the main text, I have restored the read-
ing of the text witnesses at the point marked with an asterisk. The nativity agrees with
30 September, 111 ce.
50 Kroll ad Vett. Val. VII 5: “(nonus enim locus sunt Pisces).”
51 Valens, Blütensträusse (transl. Schönberger and Knobloch), 277; Valens, Anthologies
(transl. Riley), 133. Schmidt (Valens, Anthology Book VII, 67–68) simply omits the puz-
zling letter. Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 394), citing this example, claims that Valens
“interprets the activation of Saturn in the ninth whole sign house but copresent with the
meridian-Midheaven,” and further that “he also takes into account that Mars was also
being activated in another way in the tenth whole sign house.” Neither claim is supported
by the text. While Valens does go on to say that the opposition involving the sun, Mercury,

28 Gansten
emended at all, nor is the word “place” mentioned in connection with it. It
might even refer to the degree of the midheaven itself: with early Cancer rising
in the sixth clime (around 45° north), this could well be 3° Pisces in the zodiac
used by Valens.52 (The position of Saturn would have been around 16° Pisces by
modern recalculation.) However, Kroll’s speculative emendation and the para-
phrases arising from it have lent support to the present-day notion that Valens
and other ancient authors, even when taking note of the astronomical mid-
heaven, regarded it as a “sensitive point” floating across the fixed whole-sign
places.53 I am not currently aware of any ancient author actually expressing
such a view.
An unambiguous example of standard topics being assigned to quadrant
places, worth quoting in its entirety, is found in the fifth book of the Anthologies:
Since 12 places signify [matters] for every nativity, and very many [events]
may be discovered from these and from the natures of the stars, one must
and Mars was effective at age 47, he makes no mention of a tenth whole-sign place: the
only midheaven referred to in the example is the astronomical one in Pisces.
52 As implied in Vett. Val. I 2,3 and explicitly stated in IX 12,11, this is the zodiac (inherited
from Babylonian sources) that places the vernal equinox at 8° Aries. The use of this model
for purposes of horoscopy remained standard among Greek-language astrologers long
after the time of Ptolemy, who had adopted Hipparchus’ model of equating the vernal
equinox with 0° Aries (see Ptol. Apot. I 10,2). For the gradual acceptance of Ptolemaic
values in horoscopy, see Jones, Rejection and Adoption.
53 See, for instance, Holden, “Ancient House Division,” 23: “Firmicus Maternus […] notes
that the MC degree is often found in the 9th house! […] the astronomical midheaven was
recognized as what we would call a ‘sensitive point.’ That is to say, it was not a house cusp
marker, but only a calculated point like the Part of Fortune. Originally, it had nothing
to do with the house cusps!” The reference to Firm. Math. (II 15,4) is incorrect: the text
does not mention the word “place” (or “house”) in this context, but only signs: “The mid-
heaven, indeed, is the 10th sign from the ascendant; yet sometimes, too, the midheaven
is found by degree in the 11th sign from the ascendant” (Medium vero caelum est ab horo
scopo X. signum, sed interdum medium caelum etiam in XI. ab horoscopo signo partiliter
invenitur). Similarly, Greenbaum (“Hellenistic Horoscope,” 469) states: “The vast majority
of extant horoscopes employ what has come to be known as the whole-sign system […]
the Midheaven by degree ‘floats’.” In support of this interpretation, Greenbaum cites the
concluding sentence of Paul. Al. 30, which, however, makes only an astronomically
matter-of-fact statement about the midheaven falling in different signs counted from
the ascendant and does not call them places: “And it is necessary to know that the
degree of the midheaven does not always fall in the tenth from the ascendant, due to the
inequality of the rising times of the signs, but sometimes in the ninth and sometimes in
the eleventh” (εἰδέναι δὲ χρή, ὅτι ἡ μεσουρανοῦσα μοῖρα οὐ πάντοτε ἐν τῷ δεκάτῳ πίπτει ἀπὸ
τοῦ ὡροσκόπου διὰ τὸ ἄνισον τῆς τῶν ζῳδίων χρονικῆς ἀναφορᾶς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐνάτου,
ὁτὲ δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνδεκάτου).

CC BY 4.0 license.
observe the angular positions and the variations of the places: for often
two places fall together in one sign, or else an angular position is desig-
nated as being cadent; and this happens on account of the ascendant.
For instance, the ascendant in Gemini, midheaven in Aquarius by
degree. Such a place, then, encompasses [both] the meanings of actions
and honours and children and those of foreign lands and God, since it is
found in the 9th from the ascendant by sign; and the transmission to [both]
the 4th and 5th from it is found to be effective in the ascendant, and the
transmission from the ascendant to [both] the 9th and 10th is effective in
it. And likewise, the opposite of Aquarius (that is, Leo), which is the angle
below the earth, encompasses the meanings of foundations, properties
and parents and those of Goddess and brothers and foreign lands, and the
transmission [both] to the 3rd and 4th from the ascendant has an effect
on it, and that from it to [both] the 10th and 11th [has an effect] on the
ascendant. And likewise for the remaining signs; and the same should be
conceived for those of long ascension, as the midheaven would [then] fall
in sextile [with the ascendant]. Thus, if we examine the places by degree,
and also the distances between the stars, we shall not go wrong.54
When signs of short ascension are rising, the culminating degree will often fall
in the ninth sign from the ascendant, that is, in a trine configuration with it,
as in the example given. Conversely, when signs of long ascension are rising, the
culminating degree will often fall in the eleventh sign, in sextile with the ascend-
ant. This example does not refer explicitly to the calculation of all quadrant
54
Vett. Val. V 6,65–69: ἐπεὶ δὲ καϑ᾽ ἑκάστην γένεσιν ι̅β̅ τόποι σημαίνονται, ἐκ δὲ τούτων καὶ τῆς
τῶν ἀστέρων φύσεως πλεῖστοι ἐφευρίσκονται, παρατηρητέον τὰς κεντροϑεσίας καὶ τὰς τῶν
τόπων ἐναλλαγάς· πολλάκις γὰρ εἰς ἓν ζῴδιον δύο τόποι συνεμπίπτουσιν ἢ καὶ σχῆμα κεντρικὸν
ἀποκλίναντος τρόπον ἐνδείκνυται· τοῦτο δὲ συμβαίνει παρὰ τὰς τοῦ ὡροσκόπου αἰτίας.
Οἷον Διδύμοις ὡροσκόπος, μεσουράνημα Ὑδροχόῳ μοιρικῶς· ἐφέξει οὖν οὕτος ὁ τόπος τὸν
περὶ πράξεως καὶ δόξης καὶ τέκνων λόγον καὶ τὸν περὶ ξένης καὶ ϑεοῦ, ἐπεὶ ζῳδιακῶς ἐν τῷ ϑ′
ἀπὸ τοῦ ὡροσκόπου εὑρέϑη, καὶ ἡ παράδοσις δὲ ἡ διὰ δ̅ καὶ ε̅ ἐπ᾽αὐτοῦ εὑρέϑη ἐπὶ τὸν ὡροσκόπον
χρηματίζουσα, καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὡροσκόπου ἐπ᾽αὐτὸν ἡ διὰ ϑ̅ καὶ ι̅ παράδοσις χρηματίζει. ὁμοίως δὲ
καὶ τὸ διάμετρον τοῦ Ὑδροχόου (τουτέστιν ὁ Λέων), ὅπερ ὑπόγειον κέντρον, ἐφέξει τὸν τε περὶ
ϑεμελίων, κτημάτων καὶ γονέων λόγον καὶ τὸν περὶ ϑεᾶς* καὶ ἀδελφῶν καὶ ξένης, καὶ ἡ διὰ γ̅ καὶ
δ̅ παράδοσις ἀπὸ ὡροσκόπου ἐπ᾽αὐτὸν εὐτονήσει, καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν ὡροσκόπον ἡ διὰ ι̅ καὶ
ι̅α̅. ὁμοίως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῳδίων καὶ πολυαναφόρων τὸ ὅμοιον νοείσϑω, ἐπάν ἐν τῷ ἑξαγώνῳ
συνεμπέσῃ τὸ μεσουράνημα. ὅϑεν ἐὰν μοιρικῶς τοὺς τόπους ἐξετάσωμεν ἢ καὶ τὰς ἀποδιαστά-
σεις τῶν ἀστέρων, οὐ πταίσομεν. At the place marked with an asterisk, I read ϑεᾶς theas (“of
Goddess”) with one of the text witnesses against the ϑεοῦ theou (“of God”) of Pingree’s
edition.

30 Gansten
places as explained in III 2, where the ninth and third places (of the God and
Goddess) were mathematically defined as the last thirds of the arcs between
descendant and upper midheaven, and ascendant and lower midheaven,
respectively. Rather, while the angular tenth and fourth places are defined with
reference to the meridian, the third and ninth places are said to be “found by
sign.” Unless this is just careless writing, meant to express that those places do
fall in the expected signs, it looks like a hybrid model or superimposition of two
systems (where “sign” could mean either the zodiacal divisions beginning with
Aries or thirty-degree segments beginning with the ascendant).55 However this
may be, the phrase “likewise for the remaining signs” does suggest that the
same procedure is meant to be employed throughout the horoscopic figure,
not for the tenth and fourth places alone.56
Valens here employs the places found “by degree” and “by sign” – whatever
the latter phrase means – for exactly the same purpose, namely, to signify
particular topics. For the two places explicitly defined by the astronomical
midheaven, the topics listed are actions, honours, and children, and founda-
tions, properties, and parents, respectively. These are standard significations
of the tenth and fourth places, recurring frequently in the Anthologies as well
as in ancient astrology generally.
Another intriguing feature of this passage is Valens’ variation on his pre-
ferred prognostic method of annual transmission (παράδοσις paradosis). In
the great majority of his examples, these transmissions are calculated in a
very simple manner: the zodiacal sign occupied by any point (predominantly
the ascendant, sun, moon, and major lots) represents the first year of life; in
the second year, the point is transmitted to the next sign and the rulership
of any planet found there – or, if the sign is empty, of its ruling planet. This
motion of one sign per year continues throughout life in cycles repeating every
55 This single instance in the Anthologies could thus be considered a possible case of two
systems being “overlaid” as repeatedly suggested by Brennan (cf. note 40); but it is impor-
tant to note that, if so, there is still no question of a “secondary overlay,” as neither system
is given priority. In discussing this passage, Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 393) claims
that “the degree of the meridian-Midheaven and IC are still taken into account, but their
positions are interpreted as importing significations into whatever whole sign house they
fall in,” and that Valens “goes on to say that the same is true in other placements of the
meridian-Midheaven, such as when it falls in the eleventh whole sign house.” Neither
statement is factually correct: the text describes the ninth place and the midheaven
(μεσουράνημα mesouranēma, the common designation of the tenth place) as both falling
in Aquarius, without prioritizing either, and does not mention the eleventh place at all.
56 The sentence containing this phrase is omitted by Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 393) in
discussing the passage.

CC BY 4.0 license.
twelve years. In the present case, however, Valens does not count signs alone,
but places “by degree”; and his last sentence tells us that he considers this
method to be more precise and correct. Thus, the transmission that covers four
years, counting inclusively, goes in zodiacal direction from the midheaven in
Aquarius to the ascendant in Gemini, although five signs are involved; simi-
larly, the transmission of ten years goes from the ascendant in Gemini to the
midheaven in Aquarius, although involving only nine signs; and so forth.57
This readiness of Valens to move seamlessly between transmission by sign
and by quadrant division seems to me strongly to support the conclusion that
they were, to him, two versions – the former more general, the latter more
precise – of the same concept: that of a place, or even of an “image.”58 A prac-
tical demonstration of transmissions using quadrant divisions in another
nativity then immediately follows:
For instance: Mars, ascendant in Virgo, moon in Scorpio [at the angle]
below the earth, the midheaven in Taurus. It is necessary to look for the
34th year. Subtracting two twelves, 10 remains. The transmission was
equivalent to that from the moon to Mars because of the angle,59 and
from the ascendant and Mars to Taurus (that is, the midheaven). At that
57 The entire discussion of transmission in this passage, which militates against a whole-
sign-place interpretation, is likewise omitted by Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology, 393).
58 It may be relevant to note that transmissions by quadrant places are not unique to
Valens, although the Anthologies may be the earliest preserved text to describe them. Abū
Maʿshar’s ninth-century Kitāb aḥkām taḥāwīl sinī l-mawālīd (“Book on the judgements
of the revolutions of the years of nativities,” transl. Dykes, Persian Nativities IV, 433–34)
makes provision for transmission based either on signs or on quadrant places, and the
Sanskritized Perso-Arabic (Tājika) astrological tradition of India likewise preserves a
memory of a quadrant-based variant, as demonstrated in the 1649 Hāyanaratna of
Balabhadra Daivajña (Jewel [transl. Gansten], 427): “For example, [if] the birth ascendant
is Leo at twelve degrees, that is where the munthahā [= transmission of the ascendant]
is for the first year; next, the second house is in Virgo at ten degrees; [therefore], in the
second year the munthahā is in Virgo at ten degrees. It should be understood in this way
in every [house/place]” (yathā janmalagnaṃ siṃho dvādaśāṃśamitaḥ prathamavarṣe
tatraiva muthahā | punar dhanabhāvaḥ kanyāyāṃ daśāṃśamitaḥ dvitīyavarṣe kanyāyāṃ
daśāṃśamitā muthahā | evaṃ sarvatra jñeyaṃ ||). Unless the numbers cited by Balabhadra
were chosen at random, they must refer to the tropical zodiac and/or to a latitude north
of India. Either circumstance would point to the example originating with a non-Indian
source.
59 Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 105) translates “since they are both at angles <10 signs apart>,”
but Valens’ point here is precisely that the transmission is valid even though the moon
and Mars are not ten signs apart: counting inclusively, the moon is in the third sign from
Mars, and Mars is in the eleventh sign from the moon. The two signs involved (Virgo and

32 Gansten
time [the person] worked abroad and enjoyed the friendship of great
men and was in danger of dying on account of a woman and suffered
cuts and bloodshed. And other transmissions were in effect at that time
but did not indicate the causes [of those events].60
Once again, although the method is explicitly said to be based on calculation

“by degree” (μοιρικῶς moirikōs), the degrees themselves are not actually men-
tioned in the example, which gives only the sign positions of the angles and
two planets. In the light of such examples, assuming that horoscopes listing
only sign positions are necessarily evidence of a whole-sign-place system
would clearly be precipitate, not to say misleading.
5 Calculations by Sign versus Degree in Other Contexts
In examining a complex technical question such as that of the horoscopic

places, it is all too easy to lose sight of the broader context. It is helpful, there-
fore, to remind ourselves that the places do not exist in a vacuum. Valens’
treatment of them in fact follows the same pattern as his recurring discussions
of other astrological topics, including the planetary aspects, the lots, and vari
ous prognostic methods. This pattern involves the use of “rough” (πλατικός
platikos) calculation by sign alone (ζῳδιακός zōdiakos) on the one hand, and
“accurate” (ἀκριβής akribēs) calculation by degree (μοιρικός moirikos) on the
other – the former type being attested, or apparently attested, far more often
in the text, but the latter being consistently held up as more correct, useful and
desirable. Below we shall look at some instances of the second type.
With regard to specific prognostic techniques, although Valens’ general
method of transmission is based on the equation of a whole sign with a year,
his introduction to the topic in the fourth book of the Anthologies includes the
following admonition:
Scorpio) thus form a sextile angle (60°), not a square (90°). The distance from the moon
to Mars is, however, ten quadrant places.
60 Vett. Val. V 6,70–73: Οἷον Ἄρης, ὡροσκόπος Παρϑένῳ, Σελήνη Σκορπίῳ ὑπόγειος, τὸ μεσου-
ράνημα Ταύρῳ· ζητεῖν δεῖ λδ′ ἔτος. ὑφαιρουμένων δωδεκάδων δύο, ὑπολείπονται ι̅· ἴσχυσεν ἡ
παράδοσις ἡ ἀπὸ Σελήνης ἐπὶ Ἄρεα διὰ τὸ κέντρον καὶ ἀπὸ ὡροσκόπου καὶ Ἄρεως ἐπὶ τὸν
Ταῦρον (τουτέστι τὸ μεσουράνημα). ἔπραξε γὰρ τῷ χρόνῳ ἐπὶ ξένης, καὶ φιλίας μειζόνων ἔσχεν,
καὶ διὰ ϑηλυκὸν πρόσωπον ἐκινδύνευσεν ἀπολέσϑαι, τομαῖς τε καὶ αἱμαγμοῖς περιέπεσεν· καὶ
ἄλλαι δὲ παραδόσεις ἐχρημάτισαν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ, πλὴν τὰ αἴτια οὐκ ἐδήλουν.

CC BY 4.0 license.
I therefore urge especially those coming upon this treatise […] to observe
the stars by degree for judgement on degrees, and likewise for [judge-
ment] on signs, in order that what is being said may be said in accordance
with truth.61 For many times I myself have taken the stars to be in certain
signs according to the table of entry times,62 and in others according to
appearances, and especially if they should be at the beginning or end
of the signs; and likewise when they cause errors at the stations and
acronychal [positions].63 It is necessary, then, for [readers] to make the
judgement after accurately discovering in what signs or degrees they are,
and especially the ascendant.64
61 From the context, it seems that the point Valens wishes to make is that even an astrologi
cal judgement based only on positions by sign (rather than by degree) is still dependent
on a knowledge of degrees, as the latter determine the accurate times of planets mov-
ing from one zodiacal sign into another. However, Schmidt (Valens, Anthology Book IV,
24) translates πρὸς δὲ ζῳδιακὴν ὁμοίως pros de zōdiakēn homoiōs as “and likewise [zodi-
acally] for those that pertain to zōidia,” the bracketed insertion altering the intention
of the phrase. Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 78), dispensing with brackets and paraphras-
ing freely, follows substantially the same interpretation: “I urge them to observe their
positions by sign when that level of accuracy is appropriate.” Schönberger & Knobloch
(Valens, Blütensträusse, 166) are more conservative: “[…] und in gleicher Weise bei der
Betrachtung nach Tierkreiszeichen vorgehen.”
62 I am grateful to Alexander Jones and Andreas Winkler for discussing this passage with
me. At the suggestion of Jones (personal communication), I have emended the ἐκβά-
σεων ekbaseōn (“exit”) of the received text to ἐμβάσεων embaseōn (“entry”), a change of a
single letter. Tables of the latter kind – what Jones has called sign-entry almanacs – are
well known, whereas tables of “exit times” are not. Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 78) gives a
rendering that, while rather different, likewise seems to presuppose an emendation to
embaseōn: “with respect to the temporal determination of transits.” Retaining ekbaseōn,
Schönberger and Knobloch (Valens, Blütensträusse, 166) translate “nach der Zeitmessung
der Abweichungen,” and Schmidt (Valens, Anthology Book IV, 24), “according to the
time-descriptions of the events.” The concepts that these three translations were intended
to convey are not clear to me.
63 The apparent velocity of planets during their retrograde periods is not constant but varies
from a minimum at either station (when changing their apparent motion from direct to
retrograde or vice versa) to a maximum around the time of their acronychal rising (at
nightfall, that is, opposite the sun).
64 Vett. Val. IV 11,14–15: διὸ προτρέπομαι τοὺς μάλιστα ἐντυγχάνοντας ταύτῃ τῇ συντάξει […]
πρὸς μὲν μοιρικὴν διάκρισιν μοιρικῶς τοὺς ἀστέρας συνορᾶν, πρὸς δὲ ζῳδιακὴν ὁμοίως ἵνα καὶ
τὸ λεγόμενον μετ᾽ ἀληϑείας λέγηται. πολλάκις γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ κατελαβόμην κατὰ μὲν τὴν τῶν
ἐμβάσεων* χρονογραφίαν ἐν ἑτέροις ζῳδίοις ὄντας τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ κατὰ τὰ φαινόμενα ἐν ἑτέ-
ροις, καὶ μάλιστα ὅταν ἐν ἀρχῇ ἢ ἐπὶ τέλει τῶν ζῳδίων ὦσιν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς στηριγμοῖς καὶ
ἐν ταῖς ἀκρονυχίαις διαπταίοντας. δεῖ οὖν ἀκριβῶς ἐπιγνόντας ἐν ποίοις τέ εἰσι ζῳδίοις ἢ μοίραις,
καὶ μάλιστα τὸν ὡροσκόπον, τὴν διάκρισιν ποιεῖσϑαι. As discussed in note 62, I have emended
ἐκβάσεων to ἐμβάσεων at the place marked with an asterisk.

34 Gansten
In other words, even accurate sign placements of the planets ultimately

depend on a knowledge of changing positions by degree. As we have already
seen, the fifth book eventually goes on to state, with regard to the same method
of transmissions, that “if we examine the places by degree, and also the dis-
tances between the stars, we shall not go wrong.” Then, in the opening part
of the sixth book, a new prognostic tool is introduced:
The division of the times according to the rough tabulation of predic-

tions by signs has been explained by us in the previous [books]. Now it
is necessary to speak of the separation and application by degrees, at
which I hinted before, as experience has led me to clarify further. In every
nativity it is necessary for those casting the figure accurately to take the
time by degree from the treatise The Eternal Tables, from the degree of
each star as far as desired, whether they be near or far away, according to
the applicable time and the order of the signs, up to the encounter with
another star by degree […]65
Our present interest lies not in exploring the technical details of the method
presented here by Valens, but rather in noting the explicit distinction that he
makes between “rough” or “broad” predictions made on the basis of signs alone
and “accurate” methods based on degrees and measurements from astronom-
ical tables.
In his treatment of aspects, too, Valens is clear about the difference, in qual-
ity as well as intensity, between distances calculated by sign alone or to the
exact degree. A few examples will suffice (emphases added):
If the [star] of Saturn should square or oppose the moon by position

of equal figure, the [child] born will have a change of rearing <and>
be left lotless by its parents66 […] The [star] of Jupiter lying opposite
65 Vett. Val. VI 2,1–2: Καὶ ἡ μὲν τῶν χρόνων διαίρεσις κατὰ ζῳδιακὴν καὶ πλατικὴν ἀποτελεσματο-
γραφίαν ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσϑεν ἡμῖν δεδήλωται, νυνὶ δὲ περὶ μοιρικῆς διαστάσεως καὶ συναφῆς λεκτέον,
ἥν καὶ πρότερον ᾐνιξάμην, ἡ δὲ πεῖρά με προηγάγετο ἐπιδιασαφῆσαι. ἐπὶ πάσης γενέσεως ἀκριβῶς
ἀστερίσαντας τὸν χρόνον μοιρικῶς ἐκ τῆς τῶν Αἰωνίων κανόνων πραγματείας χρὴ λαμβάνειν ἀπὸ
ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἀστέρος μοίρας ἐφ᾽ ὃν βούλεταί τις, ἤτοι σύνεγγυς ὄντα ἢ πόρρωϑεν, κατὰ τὸν ἐπιδε-
χόμενον χρόνον καὶ τὴν ἀκολουϑίαν τῶν ζῳδίων μέχρις ἄλλου ἀστέρος μοιρικῆς συναντήσεως […]
66 The “change of rearing” presumably means that the child will be reared by others than
its parents. Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 27) translates “the native will have an interruption
of nurture and will be abandoned by his parents”; Schönberger and Knobloch (Valens,
Blütensträusse, 57), rather implausibly, “wird, der da geboren wird, an seiner Aufzucht zu
tadeln finden und von den Eltern verstoßen werden”; Schmidt (Valens, Anthology Book
II, 9), even less plausibly, “the native will have claim to nurture [even though] he will be
unallotted parents.”
CC BY 4.0 license.
the moon to the degree makes loss of children67 and opposition from
superiors.68
Jupiter square the sun in obscure degrees or signs is rendered unpleasant

[…] and falling opposite the sun, [even] more unpleasant, for not only is
all its good quenched, but [such persons] will suffer the wrath of superi-
ors and opposition from the masses. Indeed, the positions of square and
opposition by equal degree are cruel.69
Mercury in the ascendant or at midheaven, indeed, makes young men

very learned and intelligent, knowing much; but they do not reap the
fruits of their pursuits, for the accomplishment of those [pursuits] will
dry up on account of the opposition of the star [of Saturn]. And if they
oppose each other by position of equal figure, the results will extend much
further and impede men in hearing and speech, and they resort to tem-
ples, making pronouncements or even wandering in their minds.70
In general, Jupiter aspecting Venus from the right, or domiciled to it,71 or

agreeing with it to the degree, will make men affable and benefiting from
women, and women from men.72
67 Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 27) translates “causes sterility”; Schmidt (Valens, Anthology
Book II, 9) compromises with “will cause a deprivation of children.”
68 Vett. Val. II 4,10, 12: ἐὰν δὲ ὁ τοῦ Κρόνου τὴν Σελήνην τετραγωνίσῃ ἢ διαμετρήσῃ κατ᾽ ἰσό-
γραμμον στάσιν [τῷ τοῦ Κρόνου], ἀντίληψιν ἕξει τὸ γεννώμενον τῆς τροφῆς <καὶ> ἄκληρον τῶν
γονέων ἔσται […] ὁ δὲ τοῦ Διὸς ἀντικείμενος κατὰ μέρος τῇ Σελήνῃ στέρησιν τέκνων ποιεῖ καὶ
ἐναντιώσεις ὑπερεχόντων. My translation omits the apparently redundant phrase brack-
eted by Pingree (“to the [star] of Saturn”).
69 Vett. Val. II 17,17–20: Ζεὺς Ἡλίῳ τετράγωνος ἐν ταῖς ἀδόξοις μοίραις ἢ ζῳδίοις ἀηδὴς καϑέστη-
κεν […] διάμετρος δὲ Ἡλίῳ τυχὼν ἀηδέστερος· οὐ μόνον γὰρ σβέννυται τὰ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀγαϑά,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ὑπερεχόντων ὀργὰς καὶ ὄχλων ἐναντιώσεις ἕξουσιν. αἱ οὖν κατ᾽ ἰσόμοιρον στάσεις τῶν
τετραγώνων καὶ διαμέτρων χαλεπαί.
70 Vett. Val. II 17,48–49: ὡροσκοπῶν μέντοι ὁ Ἑρμῆς ἢ μεσουρανῶν τοὺς νεωτέρους πολυίστοράς
τε καὶ συνετοὺς ποιεῖ καὶ πολυμαϑεῖς, τοὺς δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων καρποὺς οὐ λαμβάνουσιν·
τὰ γὰρ διαπραττόμενα δι᾽ ἀυτῶν καταψυγήσονται διὰ τὴν ἐναντίωσιν τοῦ ἀστέρος. ἐὰν δὲ κατ᾽
ἰσόγραμμον στάσιν ἀλλήλους διαμετρῶσιν, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐπιτείνει τὰ ἀποτελέσματα, καὶ ταῖς
ἀκοαῖς ἢ ταῖς λαλιαῖς παραποδίζει, καὶ ἐν ἱεροῖς κάτοχοι γίνονται ἀποφϑεγγόμενοι ἢ καὶ τῇ δια-
νοίᾳ παραπίπτοντες.
71 This presumably refers to the relationship known in later astrological tradition as recep-
tion, two planets being configured by aspect while one occupies a sign (or part of a sign)
ruled by the other.
72 Vett. Val. II 38,28: καϑόλου δὲ Ζεὺς Ἀφροδίτην ἐπιϑεωρῶν ἢ καὶ οἰκειούμενος ἀυτῇ ἢ καὶ
κατὰ μοῖραν σύμφωνος ἀυτῇ εὐσυναλλάκτους ποιήσει καὶ ἀπὸ γυναικῶν ὠφελουμένους, τάς τε
γυναῖκας ἀπὸ ἁνδρῶν.
36 Gansten
Perhaps more surprising is the fact that Valens occasionally uses the term moi
rikos to denote a square configuration between two planets that is not based
on ecliptical degrees at all, but rather on the horizon and meridian dividing the
celestial sphere into four equal parts: the foundation of the quadrant places.
This is apparently done by imagining one planet to be at the midheaven and
the other, on the ascendant:73
For instance, let Saturn be in degree 21 of Cancer, in Venus’ terms: the

opposition in Capricorn in Mars’ terms; Mars in degree 27 of Taurus. In
this case, [the person] will die when Saturn is in Virgo, for this is a square
by degree.74
The clime of birth is not mentioned, but in the sixth and seventh climes –
to which a fair number of the example nativities in the Anthologies seem to
belong, judging by the ones that do include such data – early Virgo will indeed
rise as late Taurus is culminating in the zodiac used by Valens. In the zodiac,
the two signs involved do not form a square aspect (90°) but a trine (120°).
Finally, with regard to lots, Valens repeatedly stresses the importance of
considering degrees. An instance from the second book of the Anthologies,
found in the context of a discussion on astrological indications of illnesses,
simultaneously provides us with another illustration of calculation by degree
underlying seemingly simplistic “basic horoscopes”:
It is necessary to examine the lots accurately and by degree, for many

times the lot by a rough estimate will fall in one sign, but by one based on
degrees, in another. And this happens on account of the degrees of the
luminaries and the ascendant, <if> they are found either at the end or
the beginning of the signs.75
73 This method is reminiscent of, but not identical to, the so-called mundane aspects taught
by Placido de Titi in the seventeenth century (see Placidus, 189ff.); nor is it identical to
the aspectual relations by rising times alone met with in some ancient sources (see, e.g.,
Heilen, Hadriani genitura, 191).
74 Vett. Val. III 6,5–6: Οἷον ἔστω Κρόνος Καρκίνου μοίρᾳ κα′ ὁρίοις Ἀφροδίτης, διάμετρος
Αἰγοκέρωτι ὁρίοις Ἄρεως· Ἄρης Ταύρου μοίρᾳ κζ′. ἐνϑάδε Κρόνου ὄντος ἀποϑανεῖται Παρϑένῳ·
τὸ γὰρ μοιρικὸν τετράγωνον τοῦτο. The same example recurs, with minor differences in
phrasing, at VIII 9,5–6. The system of terms employed appears to be that of Critodemus;
see Pingree, Yavanajātaka II: 212–13.
75 Vett. Val. II 37,40: χρὴ μὲν οὖν ἀκριβῶς καὶ μοιρικῶς τοὺς κλήρους ἐξετάζειν· πολλάκις γὰρ κατὰ
μὲν τὴν πλατικὴν ϑεωρίαν εἴς τι ζῴδιον συνεκπίπτει ὁ κλήρος, κατὰ δὲ τὴν μοιρικὴν εἰς ἄλλο·

CC BY 4.0 license.
This statement is followed, a few sentences later, by several brief examples, the
second of which begins (emphasis added):
Sun in Sagittarius, moon in Cancer, Saturn in Taurus, Jupiter, Mercury in

Scorpio, Mars in Leo, Venus in Capricorn, ascendant in Aquarius. Lot of
Fortune in Leo; Mars is placed there, with Saturn dominating [from the
dexter side of a square].76
In Valens’ zodiac, these positions correspond to the forenoon of 22 November,

85 ce. With the moon and ascendant both in the early degrees of their respec-
tive signs, the Lot of Fortune calculated by degree will indeed fall in Leo, the
sign opposite the ascendant, despite the fact that the sun and moon – the arc
between which determines the position of the lot – do not occupy opposing
signs (see fig. 10).77
What looks like a “basic horoscope” – a list or diagram of mere sign posi-
tions – may thus be based on tacit calculation by degree; but it is not possible
to reverse the process and derive degree positions from such a horoscope. In
other words, a “basic horoscope” cannot be used to determine a range of fac-
tors often presented both explicitly and implicitly as essential by Valens and
other ancient authors. Such factors include the positions of the planets
and ascendant in the unequal divisions of a sign known as the terms (and,
secondarily, in other zodiacal subdivisions, such as decans/faces or dode-
catemories); in many cases, the phases of the planets with the sun (that is,
whether they are visible or invisible, stationary, retrograde, or direct – and,
when the luminaries occupy the same or opposing signs, whether the nativ-
ity was most recently preceded by a new or a full moon); and, when the sun
is in the rising or setting sign, sect – that is, whether the birth took place by
day or by night. All of these critical considerations depend on a knowledge
of positions by degree.
συμβαίνει δὲ τοῦτο παρὰ τὰς τῶν φώτων καὶ ὡροσκόπου μοίρας <εἰ> ἤτοι ἐπὶ τέλει ἢ ἐν ἀρχαῖς
τῶν ζῳδίων εὑρίσκεται.
76 Vett. Val. II 37,48–49: Ἥλιος Τοξότῃ, Σελήνη Καρκίνῳ, Κρόνος Ταύρῳ, Ζεύς, Ἑρμῆς Σκορπίῳ,
Ἄρης Λέοντι, Ἀφροδίτη Αἰγοκέρωτι, ὡροσκόπος Ὑδροχόῳ. κλῆρος τύχης Λέοντι· τούτῳ Ἄρης
ἐπίκειται, Κρόνου καϑυπερτεροῦντος.
77 Riley (Valens, Anthologies, 49), missing the point of the unambiguous statement just
preceding, apparently believes Valens to have made a mistake and translates: “the Lot of
Fortune in Leo <! should be Virgo>.”

38 Gansten
07°
26°
2°
Figure 10 Calculated by degree, the ascendant and Lot of Fortune may fall in opposing
signs even if the sun and moon do not.
6 Conclusion
From an unprejudiced reading of the Anthologies there can be little doubt

that Vettius Valens was accustomed to form a general opinion on a nativity
from the mere distribution of the seven planets and the ascendant across the
zodiacal signs, and that he expected his readers often to do the same. Equally,
however, it is clear from his repeated statements that Valens considered this a
“rough” (πλατικός platikos) approach, whereas positions by degree were “accu-
rate” (ἀκριβής akribēs) and prevented the astrologer from falling into mistakes
of judgement. This use of degrees extended over several areas of horoscopic
practice, including the consideration of aspects and lots, particular prognostic
techniques, and, perhaps most importantly, the twelve horoscopic places.
In addition to explicit instructions on the use of positions by degree and exam-
ple nativities illustrating it, the Anthologies contain a number of statements

CC BY 4.0 license.
and nativities that imply such use, including nativities presented in the decep-
tively simplistic form of “basic horoscopes” with only the sign positions of the
planets and ascendant listed. With regard to horoscopic places, explicit as well
as implicit statements and examples are either expressly based on quadrant
divisions – the meridian defining the fourth and tenth places – or agree with
such divisions, with the sole exception of a passage in the last book detail-
ing equal places with reference to the writings of Asclepius. Occasionally, the
Anthologies go so far as to employ quadrant divisions in place of zodiacal signs
both in the annual transmission (παράδοσις paradosis) and for defining square
configurations between planets. We would thus seem justified in concluding
that quadrant divisions constituted Valens’ preferred method of calculating
places by degree.
Given his unambiguously stated approbation of calculating places, aspects,
lots, and positions underlying prognostic procedures by degree, how is the
preponderance of “basic horoscopes” among Valens’ cited examples to be
understood? I believe that the answer is twofold. In the first place, Valens, like
many or most astrologers in the ancient world, probably did use simplified,
approximative tables and methods of calculation at least some of the time.
The practical value of such time- and labour-saving procedures to a practising
astrologer in this period should not be underestimated. The basic horoscope
gave a broad overview of the nativity, to which details pertaining to any par-
ticular area under investigation – including the precise longitudes of planets,
angles, and intermediate places – could be added as needed.
In the second place, we may be dealing with a convention of presentation.
Even when it is clear that Valens has access to information based on positions
by degree – such as the location of the astronomical midheaven, the terms
occupied by a planet, the exact place of a lot, etc. – he typically forbears to
list those positions at least initially, staying instead with the basic-horoscope
format.78 That format would have functioned as a lowest common denomi-
nator of astrological technique, immediately familiar even to the beginning
student of astrology, and may have been chosen for that very reason. It would
also have corresponded to the form of a simple astrological pinax marking the
twelve zodiacal signs, a tool likely to have been used by many readers visually
to recreate the example nativities discussed in the text.
While the ancient practice of equating the zodiacal signs with the twelve
places, at least provisionally, is strongly corroborated by many examples
78 One anonymous reviewer of the present article helpfully remarked that some of the
example horoscopes discussed by Valens are in fact used more than once, with different
levels of precision employed at different places in the text.

40 Gansten
from the Anthologies, it thus seems doubtful whether that practice merits the
designation “system,” at least as it relates to the work of Vettius Valens. Such
a designation as commonly used implies not just a practice, but one founded
on theoretical principles, and Valens’ statements of principle all favour places
by degree rather than sign. From a review of the text in its entirety, it thus seems
likely that he would have agreed with the statement by Firmicus Maternus two
centuries later: “[…] it suffices to have related these things roughly [by whole
signs] to sketch the beginnings for the student; later, indeed, we shall take
care to explain how far these places are appointed by the accurate boundaries
of degrees.”79
As a thought experiment, we may ask ourselves what Valens’ example horo-
scopes might have looked like, had he and his readership had access to modern
software that could provide them with the exact longitudes of planets, lots, and
quadrant places just as easily as with approximations based on signs alone
and recreated on a pinax. We cannot, of course, know the answer with absolute
certainty; but on the basis of the textual passages analysed above, we can make
an educated guess.
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledge the kind assistance of Ola Wikander in discussing

the subject matter of this article with me in some detail, including intricacies
of Greek style and grammar. I likewise thank Paul Kiernan for his percep-
tive comments and Luís Ribeiro for his generous help with locating several
out-of-the-way printed sources.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Firm. Math.
Firmicus Maternus. Iulii Firmici Materni Matheseos libri VIII. Edited by Wilhelm Kroll,
Franz Skutsch, and Konrat Ziegler. Leipzig: Teubner, 1897–1913.
Hāyanaratna
Balabhadra Daivajña. The Jewel of Annual Astrology: A Parallel Sanskrit-English Critical
Edition of Balabhadra’s Hāyanaratna. Edited and translated by Martin Gansten.
Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004433717.
79 See note 34.

CC BY 4.0 license.
Manil.
Marcus Manilius. M. Manilii Astronomica. Edited and translated by George P. Goold.
Leipzig: Teubner, 1998.
Morinus
Morinus, Joannes Baptista. Astrologia Gallica principiis & rationibus propriis stabilita,
atque in XXVI. libros distributa. Hagae-Comitis [The Hague]: Adrianus Vlacq, 1661.
Paul. Al.
Paulus Alexandrinus. Παύλου Αλεξανδρέως Εἰσαγωγικά = Pauli Alexandrini Elementa
Apotelesmatica. Edited by Emilie Boer. Leipzig: Teubner, 1958.
Placidus
de Titis, Placidus. Physiomathematica, sive Coelestis Philosophia. Mediolanum [Milan]:
Franciscus Vigonus, 1675.
Procl. Par. Ptol.

Proclus. Πρόκλου τοῦ διαδόχου παράφρασις εἰς τὴν τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τετράβιβλον = Procli
Diadochi Paraphrasis in Ptolemæi libros IV. Edited and translated by Leo Allatius.
Lugdunum Batavorum [Leiden]: ex officinâ Elzeviriana, 1635.
Ptol. Apot.
Claudius Ptolemaeus. Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia 3.1: Ἀποτελεσματικά.
Edited by Wolfgang Hübner. Leipzig: Teubner, 1998.
Vett. Val.
Vettius Valens. Vettii Valentis Antiocheni Anthologiarum libri novem. Edited by David
Pingree. Leipzig: Teubner, 1986. (Standard edition.)
Vettius Valens. Vettii Valentis Anthologiarum libri. Edited by Wilhelm Kroll. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1908.
Secondary Sources and Translations

Brennan, Chris. Hellenistic Astrology: The Study of Fate and Fortune. Denver, CO: Amor
Fati Publications, 2017.
Dykes, Benjamin. The Astrology of Sahl b. Bishr, vol. I. Minneapolis, MN: Cazimi Press,
2019.
Dykes, Benjamin. Persian Nativities IV: On the Revolutions of the Years of Nativities by
Abū Ma’shar. Minneapolis, MN: Cazimi Press, 2019.
Gansten, Martin. The Jewel of Annual Astrology: A Parallel Sanskrit-English Critical Edition
of Balabhadra’s Hāyanaratna. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020. https://doi.org/10
.1163/9789004433717.
42 Gansten
Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler. The Daimon in Hellenistic Astrology: Origins and Influence.
Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016.
Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler. “The Hellenistic Horoscope.” In Hellenistic Astronomy:
The Science in Its Contexts, edited by Alan C. Bowen and Francesca Rochberg,
443–71. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2020.
Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler, and Micah T. Ross. “The Role of Egypt in the Development
of the Horoscope.” In Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt
in the First Millennium bce, edited by Ladislav Bareš, Filip Coppens, and Květa
Smoláriková, 146–82. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Charles University,
2010.
Hand, Robert. “Signs as Houses (Places) in Ancient Astrology.” In Culture and Cosmos
11, no. 1–2 (2007): 135–62.
Hand, Robert. Whole Sign Houses: The Oldest House System. Reston, VA: ARHAT, 2000.
Heilen, Stephan. Hadriani genitura: Die astrologischen Fragmente des Antigonos von
Nikaia. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2015.
Holden, James Herschel. “Ancient House Division.” In Journal of Research of the
American Federation of Astrologers 1, no. 1 (1982): 19–28.
Hübner, Wolfgang. Die Dodekatropos des Manilius (MANIL. 2,856–970). Stuttgart:
Mainzer Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1995.
Jones, Alexander. “Ancient Rejection and Adoption of Ptolemy’s Frame of Reference for
Longitudes.” In Ptolemy in Perspective: Use and Criticism of His Work from Antiquity to
the Nineteenth Century, edited by Alexander Jones, 11–44. New York: Springer, 2010.
Jones, Alexander. Ptolemy’s First Commentator. Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society, 1990.
László, Levente. “Valens on the Third-Sections of the Quadrants: Textual Analysis and
Interpretation.” Digitally published; no place, 2021. Online version, accessed Oct 22,
2022: https://www.patreon.com/posts/valens-on-third-56427815.
Manilius, Marcus. Astronomica. Translated and edited by George P. Goold. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1992 [1977].
Morinus, Joannes Baptista. Astrologia Gallica Book Sixteen: The Rays and Aspects of the
Planets. Translated by James Herschel Holden. Tempe, Arizona: American Feder
ation of Astrologers, 2008.
Claudius Ptolemy. Tetrabiblos. Translated by Frank Egleston Robbins. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1964 [1940].
Claudius Ptolemy. Tetrabiblos, Book III. Translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by Robert
Hand. Berkeley Springs, WV: Golden Hind Press, 1996.
Schmidt, Robert. Definitions and Foundations. Cumberland, MD: Golden Hind Press,
2009.

CC BY 4.0 license.
Schmidt, Robert. “The So-Called ‘Problem of House Division’: Definitions of Greek

Terms and New Translations of Key Passages with Brief Notes & Commentary.”
Digitally published as a PDF e-book companion to an audio lecture. Cumberland,
MD: Project Hindsight, 2016.
Sphujidhvaja. The Yavanajātaka of Sphujidhvaja. Translated and edited by David Pingree.
2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Vettius Valens. Anthologies. Translated by Mark Riley. Digitally published; no place,
2010. Online version, accessed Oct 22, 2022: https://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt
/Vettius%20Valens%20entire.pdf.
Vettius Valens. The Anthology Book II, Part 1. Translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by
Robert Hand. Berkeley Springs, WV: Golden Hind Press, 1994.
Vettius Valens. The Anthology Book IV. Translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by Robert
Hand. Berkeley Springs, WV: Golden Hind Press, 1996.
Vettius Valens. The Anthology Book VII. Translated by Robert Schmidt. Cumberland,
MD: Golden Hind Press, 2001.
Vettius Valens. Blütensträusse. Translated by Otto Schönberger and Eberhard Knobloch.
St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 2004.
Wind, Edgar. Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1958.
Winkler, Andreas. “Stellar Scientists: The Egyptian Temple Astrologers.” Journal of
Ancient Near Eastern History 8 (1–2, 2021): 91–145. https://doi.org/10.1515/janeh
-2020-0017.


Ijdp Article p1 - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ijdp Article p1 - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Divination

& Prognostication 4 (2023) 1–43

Platikos and moirikos: Ancient Horoscopic Practice

Vettius Valens – horoscopic places – house systems – domification – dōdekatropos –

© Martin Gansten, 2023 | doi:10.1163/25899201-12340029 Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

been discernible among the admittedly limited circle of scholars engaged in

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

5 Hand, “Signs as Houses,” 143.

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Anthologies – and, secondarily, of other astrological works from the ancient

2 Places by Sign and by Degree in Valens’ Anthologies

7 Wind, Pagan Mysteries, 191.

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

and midheaven (μεσουράνημα mesouranēma), also known as the two primary

11 Contemporary practitioners sometimes translate δαίμων daimōn as “spirit”: Good Spirit

Sun, Mercury, ascendant in Taurus; moon in Pisces; Saturn in Gemini;

On this matter, Asclepius, setting it in motion, composed the most, and

This is followed by simple instructions for calculation which have a direct

But to me it seems more natural to proceed in this manner: taking the

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

order, to judge [these] degrees and those opposite them to be powerful,

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

to as “signs” (ζῴδιον zōdion; Latin signum) in normative texts. From time to

Effective and productive signs are the ascendant, midheaven, Good

The whole-sign-place interpretation is based on the generally tacit assumption

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

First of all, it is necessary to calculate the places by degree, and, once

Alongside “sign” in the commonly acknowledged sense, we have here an explicit

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

A similar terminological fluidity is found in Claudius Ptolemy’s Apotelesmatics

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

While Ptolemy’s style is characteristically terse, it is clear that he is describing

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

4 Were Places by Degree Reserved for Particular Purposes?

A suggestion sometimes encountered in the recent literature is that whole-sign

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Even if the same matters seem to be spoken of repeatedly, it makes no dif-

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Sun in degree 25;8 of Pisces; moon in degree 16;53 of Gemini; Saturn in

There is no reason to believe a different system of places to be presupposed

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

As the preponderance of “basic horoscopes,” listing only the positions of the

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Sun, Mercury in Libra, moon in Aquarius, Saturn in Pisces, Jupiter in

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Once again, although the method is explicitly said to be based on calculation

5 Calculations by Sign versus Degree in Other Contexts

In examining a complex technical question such as that of the horoscopic

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

Downloaded from Brill.com 10/28/2023 10:31:57AM

In other words, even accurate sign placements of the planets ultimately

The division of the times according to the rough tabulation of predic-

If the [star] of Saturn should square or oppose the moon by position

Jupiter square the sun in obscure degrees or signs is rendered unpleasant