Whole Sign or Placidus?

I think astrology is a very individualized practice-- I have not yet discovered the reason for this. But clearly astrologers can produce extraordinary results with a range of techniques and persuasions. I think intercepted signs "work" yet many astrologers think differently.

Most of the house systems in current use were developed during the era of traditional astrology. The Placidus system, for example, was published in the 1600s, but may have been in use earlier. The 15th century Regiomontanus system is preferred by a lot of horary astrologers.

I guess the jury is out on the 20th century methods.

Lol I love the snippy little remark at the end. There are 20th century methods and people do use them. I know someone on this site that uses Koch.

And I'm willing to bet if the default house system on astrology websites was Koch, you'd be using Koch right now, too.

Actually, in my chart Koch and Placidus give pretty much the same house cusps.

True enough that all of the quadrant house systems# give pretty similar results, except in the extreme latitudes where more pronounced differences are often noted.
I'll add, also, that Equal house often is quite close in results, to the various quadrant systems.
Whole sign, however, often gives significant differences from the quadrant systems...so, every artist will have to decide for themselves; I used Placidus for 35 years (!!), and with good results; then I switched to Whole sign (for the past 13 years), and got -FOR ME- what I believe to be even better results...


*quadrant house systems, in order of historical origination:
Porphyry
Alchabitius (more accurately Rhetorius/Alchabitius)
Campanus
Regiomontanus
Placidus
Koch
...various mid to late 20th century modifications, such as topocentric, etc

I'd say for anyone who discredits whole signs, give it an honest 30-day trial. Delineate other people's charts using whole signs and see for yourself how much easier and more accurate your readings become.

Well, that is pretty much what I did back in 1998 when I first learned about the existence of the whole sign format (from Robert Hand) For me at least, a good number of indications became clearer when I cast the charts in whole sign, than the sometimes not quite as clear indications from my (at that time) usual application of Placidus.

But, again, I realize this is one of the most disputed areas in astrology (house formats) so although I am enthused about whole sign, I respect all the other house systems and the experiences of others in their use.

One wonders why, in the history of astrology, if whole signs clearly gave more accurate readings, the astrologers of antiquity (Vettius Valens, Porphyry), the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance were concerned to develop new systems.

Also, why Regiomontanus system is the favoured one for horary astrology, despite the fact that it is the most traditional branch of "modern" astrology.

Uranian rebel

I have in placidus pluto in 10th and in equal house and whole house it is in 11th.

In placidus it is going retrograde into 10th. I have had chart readings from modern astrologers clearly and they always use the 10th house.(its conj uranus in virgo)

I am definitely not ruthless or career driven - however managers often see me as capable(particularly scorpio sun signs)

I also enjoy group activities but had to leave a healing circle when I got a load of negativity chucked at me by other group members (saturn was transiting over pluto)

so I feel that it is effective in both houses in my case.

it is very hard to do a impartial judge on your own chart as Bobz says. I often find that on here as you get to know people just by their posting and when the describe themselves(ie for example a moon in aries etc) it is anything but the person you know who posts!!!it can be quite amusing.

so I would try out different charts as see what fits but be aware that you have areas of your personality that you may not be aware of but others will.

with a strong uranian streak(aqua rising) in your chart then you will come across in very different ways to different people too though.

waybread said:

One wonders why, in the history of astrology, if whole signs clearly gave more accurate readings, the astrologers of antiquity (Vettius Valens, Porphyry), the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance were concerned to develop new systems.
Also, why Regiomontanus system is the favoured one for horary astrology, despite the fact that it is the most traditional branch of "modern" astrology.

Click to expand...

(A) Astrology is either Traditional or Modern.

(B) Modern Astrology uses the outer planets. Although some Modern Astrologers use more Traditional techniques than other Modern Astrologers, they are using the outer planets so they are Modern Astrologers.

(C) Traditional Astrology uses the seven visible planets solely. Traditional Astrologers completely exclude the outer planets.

(D) The outer planets were unknown at the time Lilley (a Traditional Astrologer) whose lifespan was 1602 -1681 wrote Christian Astrology before the discovery of any of the outer planets: Lilley gave detailed instructions regarding Horary Astrology. Lilley used Regiomontanus and followers of Horary Lilley use Regiomontanus also. Horary Astrology completely excludes the outer planets and is a Traditional Astrological practice.

The original and oldest house system is Whole Sign Houses. Regarding your comment mentioning Valens, with only two exceptions, Valens used Whole Sign. According to Schmidt the twelve Whole Sign Houses are utilised in order to determine Topics and are known therefore as Topical - whereas other House systems are utilised in order to calculate planetary strength and are therefore designated as dynamical houses.

Anachiel said:

It is my belief that confusion generally arises from taking house systems out of the context of their time and the particular methods they were each applied to.
For example, Ptolemy in his third book of the Tetrabiblos describes two completely different house divisions when focusing on life and death matters. The difference is the calculation (or perspective) in order to determine the difference between what "rules" life and death in the chart vs. when they actually are "active" and can be "used". So, you see a difference in divisions as to how to first determine what is, as opposed to, when to use what is. Each having a different way to divide the chart to determine these.
I am certainly no scholar and I leave that to greater minds but, there appears to me to be a lost view of perspective as to when to use different house systems for particular reasons. It was not just a free-for-all by any means and there was a method in choosing what has now become madness of choice. lol

Click to expand...

Jupiterasc, just some feedback on your latest.

(A) You've made a strong case for the dependence of modern astrology on traditional astrology. It would seem, therefore, that there are significant areas of overlap. I am currently part-way through Avelar and Ribeiro's new primer on traditional astrology: On the Heavenly Spheres: A Treatise on Traditional Astrology. I have been pleasantly surprised at how much of the basics I already knew from studying modern astrology.

I see no reason in principle why an astrologer couldn't do "fusion" astrology, taking elements of both.

(B) Although modern astrologers use the outers, there are many other points of difference. Some of these are horoscopic points (like Black Moon Lilith or asteroids.) Other differences have more to do with one's concepts about humanity and the cosmos, or different techniques. I don't know whether any traditional astrologers use harmonic charts or tertiary progressions, for example, but I might look at them if I want to study a chart in-depth.

(C) I've heard some traditional astrologers say that they use the outers, but I think they are rare. It is hard to know in which camp to place horary astrology, however; because some practitioners might let Uranus rule electricity, for example. A survey of horary boards here or over at Astrodienst might indicate how common any modernization is. Rulership of objects and phenomena would lend itself more readily to using the outer planets than would tampering with the age-old dignities and debilities.

(D) Thanks for the info on houses!

(A) Fusion? Clearly that is unlikely because attempting the fusion of outer planetary rulerships/exaltations/domiciles with a successful Traditional rationale leads to chaos and confusion. Traditional Dignities and Debilities are designed to work independently of the outer planets.


(B) Modern Astrology remains entirely dependent upon its base of Traditional Astrological concepts


( C) (1) Because the existence of the outer planets was unknown at the time, Traditional horary astrology excludes these.

(2) Because they are using previously unknown planets, Astrologers using outer planets for horary delineation are Modern Astrologers.


(D) that's ok

I don't think "fusion astrology" it is at all impossible!

There is no reason not to combine different techniques.

I just read something interesting in Avelar and Ribeiro's On The Heavenly Spheres, an intro textbook on traditional astrology.

They note that the problem in using outer planets in traditional astrology is that the "inners'" system of traditional rulership was based upon "the order of the celestial spheres [i.e., place in a geocentric solar system] and the seasons of the year..." whereas rulerships of the outer planets are based upon simple planet-phenomena affinities.

Fair enough; but traditional astrology--notably in horary--uses planet-phenomenon affinities, as well. So it is possible to use the outers for certain kinds of work, but not to shoehorn them into a system (dignities, &c.) where it would be more difficult to see where to place them.

I wouldn't make a fetish out of either traditional or modern astrology. Modern western astrologers are already working with fixed stars, Arabic parts, adopting concepts from Vedic astrology (like lunar mansions), and so on. It is only a matter of time before they borrow more concepts from traditional astrology, in my opinion.

I am guilty of "fusion" astrology, although I think of it as being "eclectic"; the renowned horarist Anthony Louis teaches the use of outers in horary astrology (me? I rarely consider the outers in my alternative approach to horary)

Why did whole sign disappear (both in the West and also in Vedic astrology)?

Principally because of a theoretical motivation to make the houses fundamentally match the angles; in whole sign, the MC and IC float, and can be in the 9/3 or 10/4 or 11/5 axis; more precision driven thinking, however, connected with the "meaning" ascribed to the houses, especially to the angular houses, demanded that the MC and the 10th house be matched, and the IC and 4th house also so matched. Porphyry was the first to attempt this, but headway in making more precise house division systems was not made in the West until the Classical period was destroyed by the barbarian invasions, the "establishment" was eliminated, and a new rebuilding of knowledge commenced again: this time period co-incides with the rather quick demise of whole sign and the sweeping in of quadrant house systems, especially the rapid rise of the rhetorius/alchabitius house system, sweeping the Western astrological world by the 9th century. Then attempts to perfect the quadrant systems began: Regiomontanus, Campanus, Placidus, into modern times (eg, Koch) But it started out as an attempt to make the angles match (as "cusps") of the appropriate house "like they should be", ie, the MC and the 10th, the IC and the 4th...

In Vedic astrology, with an emphasis on the "lagna" (ascendant), instead of the ascending degree allowed to "float" in the 1st sign (1st bhava or house), it was determined that the ascending degree is the essence of the 1st house, and since the chart is centered upon the ascending degree, it was decided to make this ascending degree the focal point/beginning point of the 1st house, each subsequent house following 30 degrees later: thus Equal house swept in to Vedic astrology (around the 8th century) based on this more "perfect" philosophical understanding of the focal importance of the ascending degree ("lagna"), replacing the "less perfect" floating ascending degree, of the whole sign house format.

waybread said:

One wonders why, in the history of astrology, if whole signs clearly gave more accurate readings, the astrologers of antiquity (Vettius Valens, Porphyry), the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance were concerned to develop new systems.

Also, why Regiomontanus system is the favoured one for horary astrology, despite the fact that it is the most traditional branch of "modern" astrology.

Click to expand...

Well, that's certainly true but, the same thing can be said of non-whole sign systems. If they work, why is there disagreement between which one is the most accurate?

In response to 'fusion' astrology, I think it can work under certain conditions.

First we must break down and dissect what works and what doesn't work. Do the outer planets rule certain signs in place of the ancient ones? Probably not, at least that seems to be the general consensus outside of cookbook websites. We can go even further and find out whether or not any planet rules anything at all!

I think if we took the time to sit down and, as a group, really give this thing a go, from scratch, we could come up with a unified astrology front. One that is accurate, open to all learners, and best of all, uniform. No contradictions or in-fighting between separate camps. Of course we're always going to have people who have to be rebels or extreme traditionalists, but there's nothing you can do about that.

In order to get an accurate view of which house system works best, we must first all agree on what each planet does in each house and each aspect to other houses. Then begin to interpret charts, with a focus on both psychology and physical events (blending modern and traditional) and see if it really is accurate.

Is it true that at the time when Whole Sign was most widely used that quadrent style systems (maybe the later known as Porphry) were also used, but for different purposes? One used for unravelling what parts of life are affected by a placement (houses, though that term didn't exist then, right?) and the other for assessing planetary strength? How does that work?

Maybe Whole Sign isn't so incompatible with 'modern' systems if multiple were used for consideration of the nativity anyway.

I'm interested in blending compatible parts of older and newer astrology. Even if I feel more confident in discovering the roots of older astrology, I still don't think that the same astrologers would necessarily abandon some things we now know today - especially the outer planets, though I need to know more about the discussion which took place connecting a newly discovered planet with phenomena here on earth.

And on this fusion path...the idea that the planets represent a macrocosm, and we here are the microcosm...does either ancient or modern astrology lay exclusive claim to this? I can't remember where I read that.

MSO said:

Of course we're always going to have people who have to be rebels or extreme traditionalists, but there's nothing you can do about that.

Click to expand...

How can 'traditionalists' be rebels? IMO 'traditional rebels' is a contradiction in terms because Traditional astrologers preceded modern astrologers. Instead it is moderns in any field who 'rebel against' traditionalists in any field. Then, even more modern astrologers rebel against the increasingly more modern astrological methods of astrologers who are even more modern than themselves

Traditional astrology stands as a self contained independently working system - totally independent of modern astrology.

Bringing in the outer planets is modern astrology. Traditional astrologers did not and do not use the outer planets and IMO attempts to 'fuse', 'crowbar in' or otherwise 'cram in' the outers causes chaos and confusion

Horary astrology pre-dates the discovery of the outer planets so clearly cannot be considered 'the most traditional branch of "modern" astrology'

- instead, Horary astrology is Traditional astrology. Regiomontanus is the favoured system because Lilley used it, obtaining excellent results without the outer planets

byjove said:

Is it true that at the time when Whole Sign was most widely used that quadrent style systems (maybe the later known as Porphry) were also used, but for different purposes? One used for unravelling what parts of life are affected by a placement (houses, though that term didn't exist then, right?) and the other for assessing planetary strength? How does that work?

Click to expand...

Anachiel answers your question

Anachiel said:

It is my belief that confusion generally arises from taking house systems out of the context of their time and the particular methods they were each applied to. For example, in this particular case, Ptolemy in his third book of the Tetrabiblos describes two completely different house divisions when focusing on life and death matters. The difference is the calculation (or perspective) in order to determine the difference between what "rules" life and death in the chart vs. when they actually are "active" and can be "used". So, you see a difference in divisions as to how to first determine what is, as opposed to, when to use what is. Each having a different way to divide the chart to determine these. I am certainly no scholar and I leave that to greater minds but, there appears to me to be a lost view of perspective as to when to use different house systems for particular reasons. It was not just a free-for-all by any means and there was a method in choosing what has now become madness of choice. lol

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand from the paragraph above ^^. Thanks for helping though.

"Still the Porphyry house system where the houses are different from the signs appears to be a Hellenistic system."

http://renaissance-astrology.blogspot.com/2009/03/originally-in-hellenistic-astrology-it.html

What do we know about this?

I think it has to be stated and re-stated: of course Porphyry was born much later, this is just the system (even if the name changed over time). Now how does this system fit into the puzzle? (it turns out almost identical to my Placidus results, which is convenient for me).

Also:

"...other house systems like Alcabitius and Campanus had arisen and aspects were by degree, ie 60 degrees away was a sextile"

How and why did these astrologers choose to use mathematical aspects? We know that the Persians were incredible mathematicians, which they brought to Spain, so that adds a propensity...but the ideas behind it? The philosophical choice for converting to mathematical aspects? I don't know much about Arabic astrology, did they use natal interpretations? Because I just read on the same site ^^ that they made adaptations to astrology for the use of prediction through horary.

byjove said:

I'm afraid I don't understand from the paragraph above ^^. Thanks for helping though.

"Still the Porphyry house system where the houses are different from the signs appears to be a Hellenistic system."

http://renaissance-astrology.blogspot.com/2009/03/originally-in-hellenistic-astrology-it.html

What do we know about this?

I think it has to be stated and re-stated: of course Porphyry was born much later, this is just the system (even if the name changed over time). Now how does this system fit into the puzzle? (it turns out almost identical to my Placidus results, which is convenient for me).

Also:

"...other house systems like Alcabitius and Campanus had arisen and aspects were by degree, ie 60 degrees away was a sextile"

How and why did these astrologers choose to use mathematical aspects? We know that the Persians were incredible mathematicians, which they brought to Spain, so that adds a propensity...but the ideas behind it? The philosophical choice for converting to mathematical aspects? I don't know much about Arabic astrology, did they use natal interpretations? Because I just read on the same site ^^ that they made adaptations to astrology for the use of prediction through horary.

Click to expand...

Here's a brief article regarding Whole Signs, the original house system http://www.librarising.com/astrology/misc/wholesignhouses.html

JUPITERASC said:

You seem to be saying that 'traditionalists' are considered rebels and 'extreme' because their system differs from that of modern astrologers.

Click to expand...

Ummmm... Nah man...

JUPITERASC said:

That is a contradiction in terms because it is not possible for Traditional astrologers to rebel against modern astrologers because Traditional astrologers preceded modern astrologers. Instead it is moderns in any field who 'rebel against' traditionalists in any field.

Click to expand...

There ya go... Assumptions are bad.

byjove, you make a good point about math being brought into astrology. I'm wondering if quadrant house systems were designed merely to satisfy the urge to bring math into everything you could touch, like a kid with a new toy playing with it everywhere he goes.

Or maybe people were just trying to rationalize astrology in any way they could. They were the scientists back then, and you know how scientists are

The ancients had no computers, astrologers were of necessity astronomers who calculated and did the maths themselves.

Today we have astrology software, which is not always accurate!