House systems

Michael · Dec 5, 2017

Most western astrologers are using Placidus and this makes perfect sense. When I say most western astrologers, I also include a good number of traditional astrologers.

It's confusing some are promoting anachronisms like Whole houses and Alcabitius. I think we should move astrology foward as a science, not take it back hundreds of years for the sake of going back to the roots of something. Astrology has advanced a lot since it's humble beginnings in the late Hellenistic period.

Whole houses are fine if you are a Hellenistic or Vedic astrologer. Otherwise it's confusing and unnecessary.

At least the siderealists have a good point, but to be honest whole house or alcabitius fans really have none.

Rawiri · Dec 5, 2017

Would you like to explain why Placidus "makes perfect sense"?

It makes perfect sense in the sense that it was what most people use...so everyone else uses it. But when I hear sense, I am thinking based on a logical component.

Most just use it because it is what they learned with or works well for them. They have no, or little, understanding of mathematics or astronomy and how these houses are derived or the theory behind them.

Those who originated these systems though had a very significant astronomical and mathematical knowledge and consequently all the house systems have a logical reasoning behind them (although I would say some are more logical than others).

I'm not sure what the issue is with whole signs (other than it being old...) It's pretty much the simplest system there is...you don't even need mathematical knowledge to understand it. Really it's perfect for the modern astrologer (who thankfully does not need to be an expert mathematician and still is able to do good work) in that way...

It's simply a division of the ecliptic taking each sign as a whole boundary. The sign is the boundary so naturally anything in that sign is going to have an effect on other things in that sign. It has no issues with very small or large houses, no intercepted houses, no issues with one planet ruling many things and some planet ending up ruling seemingly nothing, no issues with any "5 degree rule" where a planet just before a house is read in the next house...or in both! And it logically makes sense and can be calculated anywhere on earth as it is based in the ecliptic.

There are essentially two kinds of house systems - those that divide space and those that divide a combination of both time and space.

As said, there's a logic to all of them.

Regiomontanus is a very logical and reasonable system. It is based on the division of the equator into 12 equal parts of 30 degrees and the projection of that on the ecliptic. There is good reason to consider the equator an important plane of the earth.

Campanus does practically the same thing, but instead of dividing the equator it divides the prime vertical. There is also good reason to consider the prime vertical important.

Alcabitius divides the space into regular 90 degree segments and then divides that into thirds essentially based on the rising times of the ascendant (it is thus a time/space system) and somewhat different to the above too.

Placidus is rather ironically the most similar to Alcabitius despite your apparent disdain for it. It also takes space and divides it up into segments based on time. However it uses a different factor of time.

It also has the major issue that none of the other house systems above have in that it falls apart the further you get from the equator...and practically completely far north or south (where the Sun may not rise or set for 6 months). There are alternative calculations and changes made to get it to work (and which software tends to do)...but the logic falls apart and many of the calculations are in fact when looked at rather arbitrary.

This issue also incidentally holds for the idea of planetary days and hours...which cannot be calculated at such places either - well unless time magically works differently there and we can have 6 month long days and live for centuries which evidently isn't the case - so due to that logic I also disagree with the standard calculation of planetary days and hours from local place of birth.

So frankly, based on "sense", of all the house systems, Placidus to me seems one of the more unreasonable ones. I'll grant it Koch is even worse...

I can see value in it for timing as it has a somewhat reasonable time factor built in to it (such as for primary directions...but modern astrologers do not tend to use that anyway...)

But as a division of SPACE which I consider the house systems to be, I reject it (and Alcabitius too, FYI, due to a similar logic). That is because philosophically I view the house systems as a division of SPACE and not SPACE+TIME though, not because it is inherently wrong.

Michael · Dec 6, 2017

Thanks for your explanation. I was thinking people where jumping on the whole sign bandwagon without thinking it through. But you are probably right.

If the wise Abu Mashar and Marshalla used whole sign houses, they probably had a point.

Does whole sign houses invalidate the work of Lilly, Morinus and other western astrologers?

JUPITERASC · Dec 6, 2017

Michael said:
Thanks for your explanation. I was thinking people where jumping on the whole sign bandwagon without thinking it through. But you are probably right.

If the wise Abu Mashar and Marshalla used whole sign houses, they probably had a point.

Does whole sign houses invalidate the work of Lilly, Morinus and other western astrologers?

at astro.com's Extended Chart Selection Page
fourteen of the more popular house systems currently in use are available options
Placidus is simply the default :smile:

Anachiel said:
It is my belief that this 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

Anachiel said:
byjove: oookay, you asked for it:

There were no Tables of Houses that were readily available as they are now. We forget this and take that for granted. So, back-when, when someone published a Table of Houses, it was a big deal because then you didn't have to be a mathematician (per se) to cast a chart. It became convenient to use whatever Table was available!

Now, because Placidus was a Catholic monk, his Tables and his religion became associated.

Later, Johannes Muller (might be off on the spelling there) also published his own Tables (Regiomontanus) making them generally available. But, he was a Protestant (or Protestants came to favor his Tables, sorry not sure which it was) and, therefore no Catholic would generally touch this work out of loyalty (or fear) to their own religion. It simply wasn't "Kosher".

It's odd really since other house division systems existed before either one of these. And, I believe, Regiomontanus predates Placidus by more than a few centuries. It was simply the availability of the Tables and the religious associations of their makers that made them popular (or unpopular depending on how you look at it).

I believe that Porphyry and Alcabitius are actually the older of all the formal house systems but, they never seemed to catch on with the masses. Probably because of the complex mathematics (like all of them, really) and no easily obtainable house tables and no religious or political motif to hang them on. Alcabitius holds up very well at very extreme latitudes unlike some of the other house systems like Porphyry.

Suffice it to say that all house systems are theoretical in nature and all act as kindling for the skeptics fire (i.e. why can't we all get along). One really would have to appreciate some spherical geometry and a good helping of astronomy to understand why any of the 30+ (now) house systems even exist. Yet, with the exception of a few rogues, there is little numerical difference in the house degrees themselves when they are all held side by side in relatively normal latitudes. The argument of houses in Western astrology is similar to the "which Ayanamsha is more valid" in Vedic Astrology.

All through this, the signs and houses are separate and distinct. They are not one nor are they related. The first house is not related to Aries, etc. This is sort of a misconception from the days of the equal houses and Aries point divisions.

In a nutshell, all house systems were attempts to figure out what sign was on the horizon and what sign was directly overhead at a specific time and then...how do we divide the rest of it fairly...especially at higher latitudes where we now need to project back to the ecliptic or equator or whatever.

The last time I checked, Regio was in use by the horary fans, Koch was preferred for predictive stuff, Cosmobiologists like Koch, Placidus was the all around place holder for natal, Meridian is used by Uranian astrologers, Solar when the birth time is unknown, Topocentric was used by the Placidus fans who lived waayyyy up there in latitude (since Placidus is not to polar friendly). Campanus occationally here and there but Campanus can be way off for house size which is why it isn't that popular. Regio was invented to correct the problems Campanus had with that.

Its a big, sticky pool to wade through and no one astrologer has THE answer. We just have traditions and examples. Until we are like the masters of old in having a well rounded understanding of higher math, astronomy and astrology, my humble opinion is to pick a master astrologer (historically), learn their technique/rules and use the house system they preferred until enlightenment is achieved...lol!

Frank said:
Equal House is NOT the oldest house system. That would be Whole-Sign houses.

Equal Houses came about from a misreading of Ptolemy in later ages.

JUPITERASC · Dec 6, 2017

WHOLE SIGN OR PLACIDUS discussion thread
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39669

dr. farr said:
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)

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...

Michael · Dec 6, 2017

Rawiri said:
Would you like to explain why Placidus "makes perfect sense"?

Sure. What I really meant was that quadrant house systems make sense for the type of astrology we practice now. I was not aware of the mathematical component behind these systems.

All of western astrology is based on quadrant house systems, except for the Hellenistic period. So leaving it all behind to go whole house is irresponsible.

My thought is that getting rid of most house systems, like Robert Hand and others are doing, is not a good idea. It looks like a fad.

I think it's a better solution to use both, like Ptolemy and Abu Mashar did. Or just stick to a given quadrant house system.

Going all whole is not sensible.

JUPITERASC · Dec 6, 2017

Michael said:
Sure. What I really meant was that quadrant house systems make sense for the type of astrology we practice now. I was not aware of the mathematical component behind these systems.

All of western astrology is based on quadrant house systems, except for the Hellenistic period. So leaving it all behind to go whole house is irresposible.

My thought is that getting rid of most house systems, like Robert Hand and others are doing, is not a good idea. It looks like a fad.

I think it's a better solution to use both, like Ptolemy and Abu Mashar did. Or just stick to a given quadrant house system.

Going all whole is not sensible.

Use individual personal choice
some find wholesigns all that is required
and that's fine

Rawiri · Dec 6, 2017

Michael said:
Does whole sign houses invalidate the work of Lilly, Morinus and other western astrologers?

I don't think it does. No more than any of the other myriad different opinions astrologers hold anyway.

I like the work of Morin that I've read, for example. He has good stuff on returns and directions. But he supposedly (it's been a while since I've read him so can't remember if he mentions it in his work or it is heresay) rejected the use of lots and all other "arab" infestations. He also attacked Galileo and believed everything revolved around the earth.

Oh well. We all have our issues...I don't have to agree with everything he says to get some value.

Michael said:
Sure. What I really meant was that quadrant house systems make sense for the type of astrology we practice now. I was not aware of the mathematical component behind these systems.

All of western astrology is based on quadrant house systems, except for the Hellenistic period. So leaving it all behind to go whole house is irresponsible.

My thought is that getting rid of most house systems, like Robert Hand and others are doing, is not a good idea. It looks like a fad.

I think it's a better solution to use both, like Ptolemy and Abu Mashar did. Or just stick to a given quadrant house system.

Going all whole is not sensible.

I agree that in many cases it is probably a bit of people jumping on the bandwagon. I think the reasoning most use is that the western system were originally springing up from the Hellenistic system and if they used whole sign then that must be the original and it was lost at some point.

I don't entirely agree with that idea. But I do think there is a lot of value in whole sign to explore.

In my own practice I use a combination...but to many that makes things even more complicated and confusing.

Michael · Dec 6, 2017

Thanks. How do you judge a natal chart? Whole sign and then quadrant house?

JUPITERASC · Dec 6, 2017

Michael said:
Thanks. How do you judge a natal chart? Whole sign and then quadrant house?

WHOLE SIGN HOUSES clearly determines TOPICS
and eliminates ambiguity of HOUSE location of PLANET

and then
using any quadrant house system
such as Placidus, Alcabitius et al
assists with determining PLANETARY STRENGTH

RogueLibra said:
Just changed my WHOLE way of thinking about it. Not saying I was looking for validation but i just couldn't return to the cusping style but cuspa as a sensitive point makes so much sense to me. For me, like Dr.Farr, whole sign is just far more accurate from personality to transit. I dont dablle in progressions too too much so i havent applied it there but This was such a great reply. I actually read that reaponse before and believe it or not its the main reason I stayed with whole sign and actually switched to it. You'd be surprised how often your name and Dr.Farr appeared on things when I googled astrology advice. I think yall were here when I first came.

Amazing post tho. Reading it a second time jist makes me solidfy my stance with whole sign houses. I'm still stuck at how much more since it makes. I think ppl think whole sign ditches cusps all together and even I thought it did but it doesn't it just reapplies them in a different way. God that makes so much sense to me. I have been on other websites where ppl use the cusps in order to have the desired placements they seek in their chart but i always felt like this was wrong. It never made sense to me to have a 12th and 1st house libra. It honestly confused me. Whole sign just provided more accuracy for me. And i didn't just use it for myself. I had some ppl ask me to read their chart and i took guesses using the whole sign system but never told them that's what i was using. They were shocked by how accurate I was and when i told them the system they looked even more shocked.

Safe to say im sticking with this system and now I have a new and more efficient way to use it

tsmalls comment at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=94683
explains the rationale

tsmall said:
I use both whole signs and Placidus.
The original idea of quadrant based house systems was to determine angularity,
and never to replace the concept of topics.
So I count signs for topics
and use a house system overlaid onto it.
Because, as I mentioned above, capability
and angularity/ability to act
are two different things.....

tsmall uses BOTH whole signs AND Placidus

I use BOTH whole signs AND Alcabitius
some use whole sign AND Regiomontanus
there are multiple QUADRANT house systems
its a matter of personal choice which to use in tandem with WHOLE SIGN
IF one chooses to do so

dr. farr said:
Yes, the dominant house system in Greco-Roman astrology
(until about the time of the end of the Classical Period) was whole sign,
but (among the famous very early Arabic astrologers of the transitional period)
only Abu'Mashar continued the ancient Greco-Roman practice,
and the whole sign house format became virtually forgotten (in the West)
until the mid-1990's.

Personally I think it was an historical tragedy for our astrological art
that whole sign houses became lost to memory,
for my experience
over the past nearly 20 years of exclusively using whole sign houses
has convinced me
of the more consistent accuracy of this house system, over any other...

Rawiri · Dec 7, 2017

Michael said:
Thanks. How do you judge a natal chart? Whole sign and then quadrant house?

Hopefully I can explain what I tend to do simply...

Firstly as was gone into above I use them a bit to define how active a planet might be.

But what I really use a quadrant house system for is to give me important cusp points. These points to me are basically like parts/lots in that they receive influence but don't cast it.

I will then typically read whole sign FROM those points to get what I consider a larger picture of a topic.

For example, say I want to read about siblings. In my own chart I have Capricorn rising, with Mars and north node in the 2nd whole sign house and Venus in Pisces in the third. However the 3rd cusp falls in the 2nd whole sign house.

A person who were to read purely whole signs from the 1st for me would see Venus exalted in the third (and 3rd lord Jupiter exalted too).

I have an extremely good relationship with my siblings. We are closer than many families and growing up we practically never fought (quite rare for anyone who has seen kids with siblings...).

Even to this day I see one of my brothers pretty much every day (when in the same country anyway), we go out together regularly, enjoy similar things etc. It fits very well in that manner.

However, if you were to concretely judge my siblings as being this kind of exalted Venus you would be only half right at best. It's there but for the most part a person looking from the outside in would not see it very well.

What they would see is the fact that Mars is smack dab on the 3rd cusp (at least with the cusp system I use). My sister was a tom boy growing up, plays a lot of sports, competitive, mechanical ability. Both of my living brothers have volunteered as fire fighters, have interests in the police. One is quite obviously martian just from looking at him and his sometimes violent attitude etc...the other has been in the army, has fascination with guns, war, law enforcement etc. They are all very martian in nature.

But my relationship with them and how they manifest in my own life is very Venus in Pisces (this is all reading the chart somewhat simply of course)

Basically if I am "turning the chart" I will turn and read from the cusp points, not from the whole sign house. But I will read whole sign houses from those points. I will also consider any strong aspects to those points to very strongly colour the concrete things in a person's life of that house.

I also find those points significant for progressions and at times transits etc to them.

House systems

Michael

Well-known member

Rawiri

Well-known member

Michael

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Michael

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Rawiri

Well-known member

Michael

Well-known member

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Rawiri

Well-known member