Whole Sign or Placidus?

waybread

Well-known member
Dr. Farr, thanks for your impressive history of house systems!

But watch whom you are calling a barbarian! I've visited Germany a few times, and it was interesting to see the positive interpretation that their museums and popular histories give the "Teutonic hordes" invading Rome; and how Roman colonists appear as the nasty occupiers. Then during the Renaissance, German universities had astrology departments--in some cases for centuries after Italy closed theirs.

MSO, looking for agreement amongst astrologers is a bad job. It didn't happen throughout astrology's history. Even Ptolemy in Tetrabiblos gives both Babylonian and Egyptian systems for certain practices, because the two branches didn't agree.

Internal diisagreements about the best house system, in early modern times, was a major criticism of astrology's detractors. (For anyone interested in the history of astrology, I highly recommend Nicholas Campion's two-volume work.)

As has been said previously, at some level an astrologer simply has to see which house system works best for him. There is nothing objective about which house system to use. If there were, we wouldn't expect expert astrologers to produce accurate readings using different house systems, and yet they do.

Australian astrologer Alice Portman www.aliceportman.com argues that different individuals respond differently to different house systems; and one way to determine the best one for somebody is to time the passage of Uranus over house cusps. Since it "rules" sudden change, we should see a shift in the individual's experience from matters related to one house over to the next one as Uranus transits.

Part of the problem with the whole sign system for me (although I sometimes use it as a supplementary technique; notably when the birth time is an estimate) is that you can end up with the MC seriously out of the 10th and into a neighbouring house. The 9th just doesn't seem to indicate one's public image, vocation, or destiny to me unless you have the ruler of the 10th in the 9th. (For an example, see Vincent Van Gogh's chart.) If someone's MC is at 29 degrees of the 10th house sign, many astrologers would see it as affecting 11th house matters. Some of my family members' MCs are seriously into the 11th house with a whole sign system. The other angles can also be way off their house cusps.

And once more, with feeling: there are many differences between modern and traditional astrology, and attributing the cleavage merely to the outer planets does a disservice to both traditions.

There is no reason why, again, why Uranus couldn't rule electricity or computers without feeling the need to assign it a detriment, fall, terms, faces, or whatnot.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Waiting for Uranus to transit a house cusp necessitates the observation of alternative planets during the seven years it takes for this to occur :smile:

Uranus orbits the Sun once every 84 years, spending approximately seven years in each Sign or House. When using house systems in which some houses are much larger than others, the wait for Uranus to transit a cusp could be as long as 14 years. For Traditional Astrologers, the transits of the seven visible planets suffice.

There is no problem with Whole Sign Houses when using the correct Traditional techniques for which Whole Sign Houses were intended i.e. for topical enquiry along with dynamical division for strength calculation

Traditional Astrology is a system that functions independently of Modern Astrology but IMO in contrast, Modern Astrology cannot function without the use of Traditional Astrological techniques. That is an important difference. IMO Modern Astrologers are dependent on Traditional Astrological techniques. Uranus does not rule electricity or computers in Traditional Astrology because other planet/s perform that function :smile:
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Waybread, in discussing the problem of the MC not necessarily being in the 10th house in whole sign, has expressed the motivating factor for the introduction of the various quadrant systems in the West, starting with the porphyry system: if the MC and the 10th house both were supposed to symbolize/signify essentially the same thing, then how could the MC be allowed to float among 3 houses-should it not be anchored to the 10th, as the ascending degree is anchored to the first? This attempt to MAKE the MC be always in the 10th house, was the driving motivation behind the introduction of quadrant systems (mathematically based systems) to achieve this result. But, the pre-6th century astrologers (like Manilius, Valens, Paulus Alexandrianus) hadd no problem, in making their delineations, with the floating MC-they considered it within the context of the house it fell in, and I follow that thinking myself, when I find the MC in, say the 9th, or in the 11th.

The real old time, practice-based astrology of Valens, et al, did not share the "perfection" of the system developed by the non-astrologer Ptolemy (Ptolemy never practiced practical astrology) and popularized by the philosopher (but non-astrologer) Porphyry (in his rendition of Ptolemy in the 3rd century) The ancient practical, empirical astrology had a lot of fuzziness to it (scientificallly/mathematically speaking) whereas Ptolemy's systemization was a sparkling Aristotelian "perfect" theoretical system. But Ptolemy only gained great influence later, during the rising Islamic era and, from there, on into the rising intellectualism of later medieval and then renaissance Europe, whereas the old Greco/Roman (and earlier Persian) outllooks fell in oblivion, and were forgotten (actually they went underground and were carried on by esoteric groups during those ages)

The scientific revolution beginning in the 17th century demolished this "perfect" theoretical model of Aristotelianism, and with it, the approach to astrology that had become intricately tied-up with Aristotelianism. Hence, the beginnings of what we now call "modern astrology", an attempt to reformulate astrology to be more in accordance with the emerging "scientific paradigm": we see the first example of this in Kepler and his "75 astrological theses".

That's why I like the fuzzier, old time Greco/Roman, largely non-Ptolemaic astrological concepts and methods, so much; and the Ankara approach (Ottoman astrology) which was so largely influenced by the astrologers of Harran, who carried on a mostly hermetic astrological tradition much more akin to Valens, et al, than to Ptolemy...
 

waybread

Well-known member
JA, I feel like the same ideas appear in your messages, like the modern-traditional dependency relationship. I am not sure how much more milage there is to get out of this observation. It often happens that the child outgrows the parents' or grandparents' way of life. We can recognize that modern automobiles, with all of their comfort and safety features, evolved from the Model T without wanting to go back to it. The English language has evolved over the centuries, and in recognizing its roots in Middle English, we are not going back to speaking like Chaucer.

1. You don't have to wait for an upcoming Uranus transit. Any adult will have had one or more changes of sign and house, and can look back at what happened then. An older person would have a bunch of these. Alternatively, s/he can recall the dates of some unanticipated, life-changing events, and see what was happening then. This wouldn't be something generational like high school graduation, but something like one's parents announcing a house move, or a new relationships. I don't think this always works, but it is definitely worth a try.

The "seven year itch" may just refer to Uranus transits.

The progressed moon changing house should be another indicator of change in the individual's life.

For sure you could use transits of inner planets, but I am not sure what they would indicate. Venus, for example, has always seemed like a vanilla, "have a nice day", smiley-button sort of transit to me. Sometimes a crisis is more defineable.

2. Since this thread is about Placidus or whole sign systems, I need to repeat that most of the house systems in use today--including Placidus-- were either invented during traditional astrology's heyday, or are simply minor refinements of them (like the Koch system).

We have to acknowledge that traditional astrology changed considerably over its history--there is no single unified traditional astrology that persisted for "thousands of years." Ptolemy (2nd cen. AD) appears to have been the towering figure of astrology prior to about 1870, but others throughout the centuries sought to improve on the system he set forth.

Western astrologers routinely used square charts into the 1600s. And a lot of these showed varying degrees on the house cusps, even where the geomentric shapes were uniform.

I haven't been able to determine (with a quick look) what house system is used in Avelar and Ribeiro's primer on traditional astrology (On the Heavenly Spheres: A Treatise on Traditional Astrology) but it is an unequal house system. In fact, they have a section (p. 98) on intercepted signs.

3. If an astrologer can produce stunningly accurate chart interpretations without using the outer planets, more power to her. They are not, however, precisely replicable by any of the 7 traditional planets, whether alone or in combination.

But that is a topic for another thread.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
There are ancient astrological techniques that date back to Babylonian and Egyptian times that are used today by 'Modern Hellenistic Astrologers' i.e. 'phasis'

Traditional astrology cannot 'cram'/'crowbar' the outer planets within the table of Essential Dignities and Debilities without damaging the original intended function of that table.

dr. farr - I agree this thread is on the topic of 'Whole Sign or Placidus' but has somehow strayed onto whether or not Modern Astrology is dependent on Traditional Astrology. Meanwhile many thanks for your reply, which I appreciate :smile:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Dr. Farr, thanks for another informative post!

I hear you.

I've got a copy of Tetrabiblos and have tried to read something about Ptolemy generally. Interestingly, he is also described as the father of modern geography and cartography, because of his efforts to produce an accurate map of the known world (attached), to develop a functional system of latitude and longitude, and to describe all of the national groups known in his day. You are probably also familiar with his Almagest, a star catalogue. (Sadly, geographers today seem to regard Ptolemy's astrology as an embarrassment.)

Taken from the perspective of Mr. Pt's larger body of work, he truly seems to have set forth his life's work as the systematizing of knowledge.

This really struck me when I tried to make some headway through Tetrabiblos. He is so clear and so logical--wow! Then I began to ask myself, "But did he ever apply his theories to actual clients or case studies to see if they worked?" If we can intuit how Pt's mind worked by reading what he wrote, he seems to have written out what must have been a lot of magical and religious beliefs of his era. The Dendara zodiac of Egypt, in contrast, is full of constellations shown as deities, and they had a whole cosmic lore focused on death and rebirth. The Babylonians were heavily into omens. Aratus and Manilius scripted the constellations according to their mythologies.

But then we have Ptolemy with his cut-and-dried humours, distances from the sun, degrees of various terms, and so on. All of the magic mythology got stripped out of it. I think it comes back in the Middle Ages, with astrologers' interests in magic charms and such, but Ptolemy himself seems incredibly denatured.
 

Attachments

  • ptolemy's map.jpg
    ptolemy's map.jpg
    52.9 KB · Views: 42

dr. farr

Well-known member
Right-for a world geographic view, the earlier Manilius ("Astronomica") talks about what amounts to a southern hemisphere of the world! And there were other astro-cartographic speculations in Greco/Roman astrology other than Ptolemy's allocations: for example, those of Paulus Alexandrianus (mid 4th century AD)

Hardly any traditionalist astrologers today use either whole sign or Equal house formats (whole sign has some followers among the neo-Hellenist astrologers) Most of our traditionalist friends use Regiomontanus, a few (especially in the Islamic world) still follow Alchabitius, and a small number still use Porphyry; of course Robert Hand applies whole sign, as do a couple of other prominent authors; I know that Deborah Houlding uses Regiomontanus, and I believe the authors of "On the Heavenly Spheres" also use the Regiomontanus format.
 
Waybread,
Part of the problem with the whole sign system for me (although I sometimes use it as a supplementary technique; notably when the birth time is an estimate) is that you can end up with the MC seriously out of the 10th and into a neighbouring house. The 9th just doesn't seem to indicate one's public image, vocation, or destiny to me unless you have the ruler of the 10th in the 9th. (For an example, see Vincent Van Gogh's chart.) If someone's MC is at 29 degrees of a sign, many astrologers would see it as affecting 11th house matters. Some of my family members' MCs are seriously into the 11th house with a whole sign system. The other angles can also be way off the their house cusps.

I don't attribute any strength to MC moving to 11th or 9th. MC is MC, it's just Equal house has 2nd sort of weaker MC being start of 10th house cusp but not MC. This always takes precendent
 

MSO

Well-known member
I don't see what the big deal is with the MC being in the 9th or 11th House. It's just a point like any of the other points. My MC is in Aries but my 10th House is Taurus. I like to be the best at whatever Taurusey things I get myself into. What's so hard about that interpretation?
 
I have Saggi MC and scorpio ruling 10th with N Node. I can be very extrovert in public, do public speaking, teaching etc, but 10th house cusp scorpio can be very private, extremely analytical and love researching in depth things. Although having mercury retro is similar theme.

South Node in 4th conj mercury is where karma is owed to family but needs of family can/have been overwhelming at times. I have read that having this karma meant that you have to become mother/father at same time to take on the burden of responsibility, which is soooo true...

now in placidus N Node would be 9th and S Node 3rd, which just doesn't work for me
 
Last edited:

byjove

Account Closed
Two things; one, just to learn a bit more, for those of us using systems with a separate MC point and 10th house, does the MC point take the lead? Does the 10th house ruler play 'second fiddle'? Are they to be considered equal? I'd really like to dig deep into that now. Also, has anyone ever come across some material about the who/how details of the conventions which 'decided' the outer planets? I'd really like to see the discussions and debates for that...I'm not prepared to take their significations without investigating...now if I find their ideas reasonable, I think I'd be able to accommodate the outers with the traditional and ancient methods I've been researching.

For me, the MC point is in the 9th of Pisces and Aries rules the 10th. I could never see just one of these as my MC, and both together makes perfect sense. I definitely like to lead, I aim for it, I've accomplished much in those positions already, but I do not like to do so at the expense of others. I'm always thinking about 'the tide raises more than one boat' and if I'm present when someone/animal is being treated badly, it's like provoking a dragon with a stick.

Some excellent ideas and debates being examined in here, another quality thread for anyone interested in this line of thought, and others will find it in the future. :happy:
 
Last edited:
Two things; one, just to learn a bit more, for those of us using systems with a separate MC point and 10th house, does the MC point take the lead? Does the 10th house ruler play 'second fiddle'?[personal choice i would say, MC to me will always take precendnet though and 10th cusp adds extra information] Are they to be considered equal?[no] I'd really like to dig deep into that now. Also, has anyone ever come across some material about the who/how details of the conventions which 'decided' the outer planets? I'd really like to see the discussions and debates for that...I'm not prepared to take their significations without investigating...now if I find their ideas reasonable, I think I'd be able to accommodate the outers with the traditional and ancient methods I've been researching. [there is an ongoing thread discussing 'outers' here]
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39021

For me, the MC point is in the 9th of Pisces and Aries rules the 10th. I could never see just one of these as my MC, and both together makes perfect sense. I definitely like to lead, I aim for it, I've accomplished much in those positions already, but I do not like to do so at the expense of others. I'm always thinking about 'the tide raises more than one boat' and if I'm present when someone/animal is being treated badly, it's like provoking a dragon with a stick.

Some excellent ideas and debates being examined in here, another quality thread for anyone interested in this line of thought, and others will find it in the future. :happy:

that was lovely description of your Pisces MC and aries 10th house cusp ruler. So how easy it was, so come back over to the light pleaseeeee :kissing:


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...wAQ#v=onepage&q=astrology equal house&f=false
this book discusses MC and 10th cusp as being more like vertex, a sensitive point...

The MC in Whole Sign & Equal House Systems
In the whole sign and equal house systems the MC (Midheaven), the highest point in the chart, does not act as the cusp or starting point of the 10th house. Instead the MC moves around the top half of the chart. The MC retains its commonly agreed significations, but it doesn't act as the starting point of the 10th house, therefore in Equal house it adds extra definition and meaning to MC and the cusps involved, but always MC is same in interpretations as other house systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(astrology)#Equal_House
 
“The simplest approaches, the equal-house and whole-sign methods, merely require knowledge of the ascendant or ascending sign, and an equal division throughout the rest of the zodiac eliminates the need for any complicated calculations
Yet recent research into classical astrology has created a renewed interest in these simple techniques from a more scholarly perspective. The point of strength is that, regardless of the originating theory behind house division, in practice at least, classical astrologers tended to tie the houses to the signs, apparently concurring with Pelletier, who wrote in defence of the equal house method”
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob4.html

http://www.adze.com/Classroom/houses.html#HOUSES

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=152849
http://members.cox.net/qainfo/qahell.html

I'm not into the history like a few members here and very little is explained about the useage of 10th house and MC... unfortunately. If you find something perhaps you could enlighten us?
 

waybread

Well-known member
I don't see what the big deal is with the MC being in the 9th or 11th House. It's just a point like any of the other points. My MC is in Aries but my 10th House is Taurus. I like to be the best at whatever Taurusey things I get myself into. What's so hard about that interpretation?

I guess it depends upon how you interpret the MC. Given the whole sign and equal house systems, we should detach it from the 10th house cusp, but then how would these two points differ in interpretation?

From a geocentric perspective, the medium coeli is the "center of the heavens"-- the midheaven-- the highest point in the sky along the ecliptic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that when one constructs a horoscope by hand (as the traditional astrologers did) the MC is the first point to be calculated--the most visible one, in a metaphorical sense. I think that from these, we get the traditional interpretation of the 10th house as one's public image and the destiny of which one is capable if we fulfill our potential. Sounds like the 10th house as it was described by traditional astrologers.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but then the ascendant is the degree of a sign just rising on the horizon at the native's birth. So one's AS is always in the sign rising--regardless of whether it was 0 or 29 degrees. With the whole sign system, it might be buried deep in the first house.

But then, the signs are simply counted around the horoscope using the rising sign as house #1, giving a 10th house cusp at what is today the "top" of the chart, regardless of where the MC actually falls. Its association with public reputation, honours, vocation, (and possibly Mom) bear little relationship to the actual zenith at the time of a person's birth.

I just checked Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky, a traditionalist's history of astrological houses. She doesn't say much about the MC, but gives Firmicus Maternus as actually calling the 10th house the MC. Tamsyn Barton, in her book Ancient Astrology doesn't give details either, but notes there was a lot of variation in terms of how ancient astrologers interpreted the MC and 10th house connection.

MSO, I have no problem with you or anyone else using the whole sign system. As I've noted above, sometimes I will use it myself. Astrological interpretation would seem to be a personal thing. If it were not, then western and Vedic astrologers could not equally claim valid results. But they do, despite the differences in their methods.

From my experience and perspective, Placidus normally works just fine.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
These articles on the history and rationale of the different house systems might be of interest.

Deborah Houlding, "The Problem of House Division." www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob_print.html

She wrote: "The midheaven is referred to as the most important angle of all and many spheres of life that we would assign to other houses are assessed by Ptolemy through the use of the culminating degree and the place that is succeeding to it. By this he means the 10th house, as the area that is rising by diurnal motion to the degree of the midheaven. This area is representative of all our outward endeavours and accomplishments: our actions, friendships, children, and everything from which our reputation is established."

Michael P. Munkasey, "An Astrological House Formulary"
www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary

He asked, ".... which house system is best to use?

"There is no simple or direct answer to that question. However, I can give you two good thoughts on the subject: use that house system which divides space in such a way that the planets fall into houses which describe their function in the nature of the event; and, use that house system which gives cusps against which you can time events. That is, if the Moon function of this event is described well by a Moon in the eighth house, then the house system you choose should not place the Moon in the seventh or ninth, or some [other] house."


MSO, Munkasey raises a whole other issue about the whole sign system, which is using house cusps to time events in predictive or electional astrology.. Whatever benefits the whole sign system might give to natal chart interpretation, you really can't use it to time events. If you could, anything of significance in an individual's (or nation's, business's, &c) life would happen only when a planet transited or progressed to zero degrees of a sign.

Munkasey, BTW, thinks Placidus gives the best results for timing of events.
For sure, you might time events by looking at transits of planets to aspects or conjunctions with one another, but the whole sign system pretty much leaves out a tool that was in use during western traditional astrology's predominance.
 

virgo18

Well-known member
in my case both: Placidus and Whole House system work.



I have Mercury in the 10th in Placidus (I was studying communication then I change myself to Audio Visual Arts, and when I finish I plan to study another one.

In WHS I have Mercury in the 11th, all of my friends are like 1 or 2 years younger than me, and they are more talk-able than me.


Venus in the 11th in Placidus: All of my best friends have a strong Venus, most of them have Sun, Moon, Ascendant, in Libra or Taurus. I also find lovers via friends.

In WHS is Venus in the 12th: Relationships are confusing or with artistic lovers.


Moon in the 5th in Placidus: I love children, I have several hobbies, my mother is loud and she has presence.

Moon in the 6th in Placidus: My moon is wakened by Pluto and so I have stomach problems. My mother is a clean-freak.



Any astrologer have to consider an evaluation in both house systems.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
MSO, Munkasey raises a whole other issue about the whole sign system, which is using house cusps to time events in predictive or electional astrology.. Whatever benefits the whole sign system might give to natal chart interpretation, you really can't use it to time events. If you could, anything of significance in an individual's (or nation's, business's, &c) life would happen only when a planet transited or progressed to zero degrees of a sign.
The original use of whole sign houses involved the use of a "sensitive point" within each house that was at the same degree as the ascendant. Transits to this point could produce events. Additionally there were the ingresses into signs. Thus, Ancient Astrologers accurately predicted events while using Whole Sign houses and without the use of Placidus (whose ancestors had not yet been born). Placidus was unknown at the time of the inception of Whole Sign Houses - the original house system that has been used to time and predict events since ancient astrological times - there's a very basic and simple article at this link http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html giving some insight.

Chris Brennan wrote this in 2007
Some scholars such as Jim Tester have pointed out that the development of the houses in the Hellenistic period may have been partially motivated by an earlier Egyptian tradition of decanic astrology, which appears to have assigned certain topics such as livelihood, illness, marriage, children, etc., to specific portions of the diurnal rotation. This Egyptian tradition was then synthesized with the Mesopotamian system of the 12 signs of the zodiac.

Munkasey, BTW, thinks Placidus gives the best results for timing of events. For sure, you might time events by looking at transits of planets to aspects or conjunctions with one another, but the whole sign system pretty much leaves out a tool that was in use during western traditional astrology's predominance.
IMO you are mistaken because you failed to take into account the correct use of whole sign houses as used by Vettius Valens et al - by that I mean the use of the "sensitive point" in each house that is at the same degree as the Ascendant. http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius%20Valens%20entire.pdf
Robert Hand mentions that perhaps the Greco/Romans used porphyry for assessing certain elements of planetary strength, but is adamant that whole sign was used in making horoscopic delineation; the first statement (in extant literature) regarding the use by some astrologers of the porphyry system in horoscopic delineation, is by Olympiodorus in the mid 6th century.
Looking at Manilius, Valens, Sextus Empricus, Maximus, Antiochus, Paulus Alexandrianus, we find only whole sign formats; looking at Firmicus Maternus we seem to find the earliest clear reference to Equal house; at the 7th century we find Rhetorius using a quadrant system (which later became known as the Alchabitius house system)

One thing to note: the contrast between what is in Ptolemy and what is in Valens is striking-they are NOT AT ALL alike, in their respective treatment of astrological elements and doctrines-you will find this well illustrated in the over view to the full translation of Valens work. Some have stated that Ptolemy represented the attempted theoretical aristotelianizing systemization of astrology, whereas Valens represented astrology AS IT ACTUALLY WAS PRACTICED during those centuries-I myself accept this concept, and that is one of the reasons I do not credit Ptolemy nearly as much as do other followers of our astrological art...

Bob Schmidt has this to say:

There is this particularly tricky passage in Ptolemy which many people over the past 1,000 years or so have interpreted it to mean that Ptolemy was using quadrant style houses for topics. However, due to recent translations from Project Hindsight we know now that Ptolemy was consistently using whole sign houses to delineate topics throughout the entirety of his work known as the Tetrabiblos. In the introduction to his translation of Book 3 of the Tetrabiblos Robert Schmidt points out that, outside of his use of the so called ‘dynamic division’ for gaging planetary activity within the context of the length of life treatment… there is no reason to believe that Ptolemy regards the Horoskopos, Midheaven, etc., as anything other than whole-sign houses. :smile:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
JupiterAsc, as I said in my previous posts, there are other ways to time events (such as planet's transits and progressions to one another) that do not involve house cusps. Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos II:4-8) relied heavily on eclipses. I see no need to throw out a very useful tool in the astrologer's kit, however.

I just do not see how cusps in the whole sign system, whatever its merits in natal chart interpretation,can be used in electional and predictive astrology. You would have to assume that life's big events routinely occur when the relevant planet hits 0 degrees of a sign. The equal house system has the same problem, because the house cusps are at the same degree.

The first article you link makes some good points, such as the artifical, subjective nature of house division. It also seems to me to contain some errors. I don't think the ascendant is "the earth" but rather the point on the eastern horizon where the ecliptic hits it at the birth moment. Also, the MC represents the top-most point on the ecliptic at the birth moment, not the heavens more generally. We might argue that the AC/DC axis separates the heavens from the earth, however, as the DC is the point of the setting sun in the west. The earth has no "inner central sun."

This article argues a case, but doesn't clinch it. To do that, it would have to demonstrate that the whole sign system gives better interpretive results than the other house systems. And that would be a big project.

I also looked at the Brennan article that this initial article links. It has some other arguments that I find insufficiently compelling. Just because Hellenistic astrologers (some of them, mind you--not all of them) used a particular house system, that doesn't bind anybody to using it today. Nowhere in the rest of our lives do we feel compelled to mimic the Greeks and their Hellenized neighbours, as much as we might admire their achievements. In claiming that the Greeks got the whole sign system right, its proponents equally have to acknowledge some really goofball notions in Hellenistic astrology. Examples available upon request.

For that matter, Manilius described the effects of way more than 12 rising constellations on the native's personality and occupations. Many of these bear no relation to signs or houses. Firmicus Maternus describes an 8-house system in use during his day. Ptolemy notes differences in Babylonian and Egyptian systems of astrology. Porphyry and just possibly Alcabitius of house system fame lived in ancient times. So the idea that there was some sort of unified Hellenistic astrology to which we all owe unquestioning allegiance is historically untenable.

I do not buy the idea that this wonderful whole sign system was somehow lost through the ages as the Arabs inherited Greek astrology and then passed it along to Europeans. There don't seem to be huge temporal gaps as the Arabs picked up Tetrabiblos at least by the 9th century (according to the intro. to the Robbins translation, p. xiv.) Something as simple as the whole sign system --in an era prior to the development and widespread usage of accurate clocks --would surely have had a following if astrologers of yore thought it worked super well.

I am not mistaken that most of the house systems currently in use were developed during traditional astrology's (lengthy) heyday. There was no other kind of western astrology till the latter part of the 19th century. Koch, Vehlow, and a few others are modern. The use of accidental house cusp rulers or lords goes back to antiquity.

I don't dispute that Ptolemy probably used whole sign houses. He says very little about houses, however.

But the larger point is: so what?

p.s. Thanks for the Vettius Valens link.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Cusps:

Today (and for the past thousand years or so) we define cusps as "borders" (coasts), but that is not the original meaning of the word "cusp": it means "point" such as cuspal teeth (bicuspids) and the point of a sword-so originally the term cusp meant the "point" of something, and in astrology originally the "cusp" of the house meant its "point"; now, when quadrant systems were developed, this "point" of the house came to mean its "beginning", which later came to mean its "border", ie, the "border" between one house and the other. And later astrology also began using these "borders" (cusps) for various prognostic applications (Charles Carter came to believe that, for timing of events, the "cusps" of the Campanus house system gave the best results, among the various quadrant house systems)

But now notice this: in whole sign the cusps are NOT the 0 degree "borders" of sign/houses at all, and never were so regarded! In whole sign, the "cusp" retained its original meaning, not as a "border" but rather as A POINT-and that POINT (cusp) for EACH house, was the sensitive point of that house, viz, the sensitive point in whole sign houses-each house-that is the "cusp" of each house-is a direct projection from the ascending degree.
Example:
-the ascending degree of a chart is 18 Taurus: what are the house cusps (sensitive points, original meaning of the word "cusp") in the whole sign houses of this chart?
Cusp of 1st house = 18 Taurus
Cusp of 2nd house = 18 Gemini
Cusp of 3rd house = 18 Cancer
Cusp of 4th house = 18 Leo
Cusp of 5th house = 18 Virgo
Cusp of 6th house = 18 Libra
Cusp of 7th house = 18 Scorpio
Cusp of 8th house = 18 Sagittarius
Cusp of 9th house = 18 Capricorn
Cusp of 10th house = 18 Aquarius
Cusp of 11th house = 18 Pisces
Cusp of 12th house = 18 Aries

Now it is these "cusps" (sensitive degrees, original meaning of the word "cusp" as a "point") that are (and were) used for progressions, timing of events, etc, and the fact is that they work for these purposes, quite well (in expert hands)
Whole sign does not use the BORDERS between houses (always 0 degree of any sign) for anything, but it DOES use "cusps" (points in the house, projected from the exact ascending degree) for timing (and other) delineative purposes.

Whole sign suddenly vanished (both in the West and in Vedic astrology) during the same period of time-ie, late 8th to early 9th century-this sudden disappearance suggests a sudden turn in astrological thinking and practices, rather than a gradual supplanting of a less effective traditional method (whole sign) by a new and more effective method (rheotrius/alchabitius in the West, and the closely related to whole sign Equal house, in Vedic astrology)

I quite agree with Waybread in the statement, "so what?" (if old time astrologers did or didn't do something) For me, there is only 1 reason I switched to whole sign-it worked better (FOR ME) I could care less if it were the oldest house system (which it is) or whether it was invented by Badda Bing at Barney's Beanery in Bayonne, 10 years ago: only things I consider are:
-does it seem to make sense?
-does it "taste good" to me (ie, does it "feel right" to me)
-and, if yes to the above, does it work (producing delineations and predicitions) better than what I have previously been doing?
Well, whole sign did all that, for me, so I switched; but I am not going to try to convince anyone of anything about it, except for beginners-to you who might just be starting out, I would say: try whole sign first, and see how well it might work for you...
 
Last edited:

byjove

Account Closed
...Cusps:

Example:
-the ascending degree of a chart is 18 Taurus: what are the house cusps (sensitive points, original meaning of the word "cusp") in the whole sign houses of this chart?
Cusp of 1st house = 18 Taurus
Cusp of 2nd house = 18 Gemini
Cusp of 3rd house = 18 Cancer
Cusp of 4th house = 18 Leo
Cusp of 5th house = 18 Virgo
Cusp of 6th house = 18 Libra
Cusp of 7th house = 18 Scorpio
Cusp of 8th house = 18 Sagittarius
Cusp of 9th house = 18 Capricorn
Cusp of 10th house = 18 Aquarius
Cusp of 11th house = 18 Pisces
Cusp of 12th house = 18 Aries

Now it is these "cusps" (sensitive degrees, original meaning of the word "cusp" as a "point") that are (and were) used for progressions, timing of events, etc, and the fact is that they work for these purposes, quite well (in expert hands)
Whole sign does not use the BORDERS between houses (always 0 degree of any sign) for anything, but it DOES use "cusps" (points in the house, projected from the exact ascending degree) for timing (and other) delineative purposes...

Might this be the alleged 'misinterpretation' / 'mistranslation' that some say 'began' Equal house? The link is undeniable, no other system has a connection like this. I have also read the opposite argument; that Ptolemy used Equal as an 'improvement' upon Whole Sign. But again that's laden with other arguments such as; is Ptolemy (as a non-astrologer) sufficiently reliable and is his table of dignity reliable (I seen that Valens has a similar table which small differences which could replace it). I see that not everyone would be interested in this, but for any of us digging to the roots of these systems, this is a crux.

Equal house (misreading?) http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19798

Also, doing some research into this on the forum, I found this:

"Yesterday I had the best test case ever - six planets in one sign (including the Sun) and two more grouped right next to the six, so they were all in the twelfth house (Placidus) or eleventh (Equal House)" lynnhayes

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19798

She's a practising, professional astrologer and had been testing Equal and Placidus. I don't want to spoil the result of that 6 planets in one sign...check the above link to see what she found...I should say also, that if one system shows 6 planets in one house which the native clearly shows an attachment to, another system could show that too e.g. Placidus/Koch/Porphry show almost identical results to me in my chart.
 
Last edited:
Top