Aspects to houses

Are planetary aspects to houses considered in western traditions (modern or otherwise?)

Yes, they have been, but only relative to the cusps of the houses, the aspect must be to the cusp of the house, and in a tight orb (of course in the Hellenist times, all aspects per se were from sign to sign, etc a planet in X sign would be considered square to the sign 3 places from it; a planet in Y sign was considered conjunct that sign, etc etc)

dr. farr said:

Yes, they have been, but only relative to the cusps of the houses, the aspect must be to the cusp of the house, and in a tight orb (of course in the Hellenist times, all aspects per se were from sign to sign, etc a planet in X sign would be considered square to the sign 3 places from it; a planet in Y sign was considered conjunct that sign, etc etc)

Click to expand...

I don't generally see this practiced. By 'have been', do you mean in one of the older traditions? (hellenistic?)

Yes, somewhat in oldtime astrology, although Modernist pioneer Charles Carter sometimes used it, and it was mentioned (in some issues of "Modern Astrology") by early Modernist E. Bailey as well; however, it has never been a widespread practice (except of course by the Hellenists via sign/house to sign/house)

Is this for natal charts or transits?

Is an aspect to a house cusp strong enough to be noticeable? I know the transit conjuncts with slow moving planets are often a big slap in the face. I've experienced this many times. It's as if the planet wants a big announce of its arrival into new house. I haven't really noticed other aspects.

At first I thought this thread subject was related to to the claims that slower transiting planets (starting with jupiter) will affect signs that are opposite and square. I suppose this can be extended to houses. However, I wonder if this effect is from transits of faster planets. If slower planets are in a sign/house for a year or more there will be plenty of time for faster planets to transit the signs/houses that oppose and square the slower planet. In this case, the effect would not be active during the entire sign/house transits of a slow planet.

The above discussion is relative to natal charts; regarding transits, ingress of a planet into a sign (house) have long been considered in transit delineation (especially so in Vedic astrology, the "gochura" relative to the place of the natal Moon; also in the lesser known Nadi branch of Vedic astrology, wherein ingresses especially of Jupiter and Saturn, are given much consideration in predictive work)

Moog said:

Are planetary aspects to houses considered in western traditions (modern or otherwise?)

Click to expand...

Well Moog, this is going to depend on whether you are talking about transiting planets or natal planets. I think even dr. farr (yes? no?) would agree that the Hellenistic as well as the Persian astrologers in what we now call western traditional astrology considered the "by sign" or by house aspects to be important. If a planet could "see" the house, then it was in aspect. There was a difference though in whether or not the aspect was applying or separating, which would influence the judgement of the aspect. We have what was called "regarding" which is when a planet made a by sign aspect, and then we had "striking" which was if a planet was within a three degree orb of the desired planet or point. Eventually, this morphed into the planetary "orbs" that we know today that allowed for the difference in the orb of influence of each planet to it's counterpart in the aspect. It also allowed for what today we call out of sign aspects, which Hellenistically were considered differently.

Yes, I do agree.