Proper House System for Traditional Astrology

dhundhun

Well-known member
Traditional Western Astrology developed during 13th to 17th century. It was sort of best during William Lilly's days and we still find his work (books) to be one of the finest books of Western Astrology.

Work during that period extensively used Regiomontanus house system. In fact Lilly also used extensively, with emphasis of five degrees cusp rules. In 17th century, then Placidus took over Regiomontanus and sort of de-facto house system used in Western Astrology - probably this answers your question.

In fact traditions set very sound footing with:
1. Natal,
2. Horary,
3. Electional and
4. Mundane

====== Modern ======
Perhaps that time world became complicated and needed more planets, asteroids and concepts. Western Astrology sort of disappeared in 18th century. Modern Astrology picked up in late 19th and 20th century, probably through efforts of Alan Leo, Vivian Robinson. Now it is very much different due to:
~ Additional bodies: Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Chiron and several asteroids
~ Use of Planet Patterns
~ More Analytical Approach
~ Newer House Systems
~ Using Nodes
~ Perhaps Synastry developed more

====== Issues ======
However, it became sort of too complex. Mostly astrologers use Modern Astrology for Psychology and Synastry. It lacked precision of prediction of traditional. It becomes more obvious in horary astrology, where traditional is more favored for accuracies.


Hope that information provided is useful to you.


Also, please note that prior to 13th Century (in AD), period of Astrology is called Medieval Astrology. This was time for Arabian Astrology. Use of Arabic Part's (such as Par Fortuna) developed those days.

For good examples of Traditional Horary Astrology, pay attention to replies by "tikana" http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/member.php?u=8. In my opinion, her readings best matches traditional interpretations.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Remember that the term "house" was not used at all by the Greco/Roman (writing in Greek or Latin) They all used the term "loci" or "locus" (place or places) NOT "domus" (house)-they thought in terms of places/locations relative to the circle of the sky, not in terms of enclosures-that developed later.
Vettius Valens and Paulus Alexandrianus are important sources-rivalling Ptolemy and even surpassing him in importance among astrologers, during the Greco/Roman astrological period (through around 600 AD) They used Whole Sign in horoscopic delineations.

I think Mr Zemco has pretty well outlined the matter in his recent posts, and I largely agree with what he has written there.

Relative to what dhundhun has posted, there are 4 periods in the history of Western astrology: original Greco/Roman (using either Whole Sign or sometimes Equal House for most horoscopic delineations; sometimes Porphyry for certain special purposes) followed by the Islamic astrological period (using Alchabitius house system-as did the famous European adept Guido Bonatti, sometime also Porphyry), then the Renaissance/Reformation period introducing Regiomontanus (which, unlike all other quadrant house systems, bases itself on the Equator rather than on the Ecliptic), Campanella and (during Lilly's time) Placidus quadrant house systems;
Placidus dominated through the Modern astrology period, with further house system introductions during Modern times such as Koch and topocentric and a reintroduction (by Carter and the London school of astrology from the 1930's through the 1960's) of Equal House, which brings us to today, where we find a reintroduction of the "lost" Whole Sign format beginning in the late 1990's.
 
Last edited:

byjove

Account Closed
Thanks all, there is a good collection of knowledge which is then open for others to learn, it's very useful and interesting.

Bob,

Do you mean you calculate your chart ruler to be something other than the ruler of the ASC? It's been a while since I read about that. Is it a question of dignity, rulership over other houses, contact with benefics/malefics? Do you use degree-based aspects only or also sign-based? And for effects in one's life - aspect to ASC, houses from ASC or Plac/Porp/Regio house? And if you haven't written a book yet, you should.

Dhundhun,

Thanks for the info. - I really needing to tidy up the development of astrology better in my head. As for modern astrology, I wonder what the ancients would have thought about our 'newer' planets? What would have been the process of determining their place? I read that when astronomers found Pluto, they were very disapppointed because they say whatever is affecting planetary orbits out that far is far, far, bigger than Pluto - so that something is left to be found. But I hear crazy-types claiming this would be the 'true', 'long-lost' ruler of Virgo etc. so many people desperate to re-arrange things...given the amount of time put into everything up until Lily's time, I don't see the sense in RUSHING assign and define, even before things are found... So ancient, medieval, then modern.

Dr. Farr,

I believe you know Whole Sign quite well and as you say you've been happily using it for many years. By any chance do you know (I thought I read it on my travels into Whole Sign) that astrologers around Ptolemy's time used Whole Sign for interpreatations and another systen (quadrent) for assessing planetary strength? Where might I find info. on Vettius Valens and Paulus Alexandrianus? I'd like to look into that too.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
By any chance do you know (I thought I read it on my travels into Whole Sign) that astrologers around Ptolemy's time used Whole Sign for interpreatations and another systen (quadrent) for assessing planetary strength? Where might I find info. on Vettius Valens and Paulus Alexandrianus? I'd like to look into that too.

I'm not dr.farr but nevertheless I shall respond to your question

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com...slation-of-vettius-valens-anthology-released/ has this to say: Published on December 15, 2010 by Chris Brennan in Translations "A full translation of the Anthology of the 2nd century astrologer Vettius Valens was released online yesterday for free. The translator is a retired classics scholar named Mark Riley, who posted a PDF of the translation on his website (here is a direct link to the PDF)http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/Vettius Valens entire.pdf"

and for what it's worth, I think the Ancients used Porphyry along with Whole Signs :smile:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
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 repsective 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...
 
Last edited:

dhundhun

Well-known member
Dhundhun,

Thanks for the info. - I really needing to tidy up the development of astrology better in my head. As for modern astrology, I wonder what the ancients would have thought about our 'newer' planets? What would have been the process of determining their place? I read that when astronomers found Pluto, they were very disapppointed because they say whatever is affecting planetary orbits out that far is far, far, bigger than Pluto - so that something is left to be found. But I hear crazy-types claiming this would be the 'true', 'long-lost' ruler of Virgo etc. so many people desperate to re-arrange things...given the amount of time put into everything up until Lily's time, I don't see the sense in RUSHING assign and define, even before things are found... So ancient, medieval, then modern.

Well, Eris/Xena was found to be larger than Pluto, accepted as 10th planet and degraded to "DWARF PLANET" same year Pluto was astronomically degraded to "DWARF PLANET". There are three more trans Neptunians of relatively similar sizes - slightly smaller. Asteroids also brought some changes. Ceres, Vesta, Juno, Pallas are few to name.

There is no clear placeholder of Virgo. Also, Pluto is not a good placeholder of Scorpio.

Being realistic will keep away from getting disappointments. Focus on things relatively more deterministic while learning and practicing.

After observing few events of chart, it is always possible to know some sensitive points in a chart, where nothing is there (Planet, Asteroids, Stars, Comets, Arabic Parts, Progressions, Reverse Progressioan and so on). Treat some object to be there and continue using that point for future analysis in that chart.

Good Luck.
 
Last edited:

BobZemco

Well-known member
Do you mean you calculate your chart ruler to be something other than the ruler of the ASC?

I only reverse the power of the 6th/12th Houses. Ibn Ezra says the 12th is more powerful than the 6th House (he gives it 2 points) and everything I've seen shows the reverse so I give 2 points to the 6th and one 1 point to the 12th (the exact opposite of ibn Ezra). Other than that I calculate the Chart Ruler as he does. Well, actually I suppose it would help to know if used Chaldean Terms or Egyptian Terms (or perhaps Ptolemy's Pterms). The Chaldean Terms are vastly different, but the difference between the Egyptian Terms and Ptolemy's Pterms are more or less cosmetic.

It's been a while since I read about that. Is it a question of dignity, rulership over other houses, contact with benefics/malefics?

You look at five points in the Chart: Ascendant, Sun, Moon, Lot of Fortune, and the pre-Natal Moon (the one before birth not the one based on chart type).

It's 5 for Sign, 4 for Exaltation, 3 for Triplicity (Dorothean) and 2 for Term Ruler (Egyptian Terms). He gives 1 for Decan Ruler, but I think that is a mistranslation of the Greek and don't use it (that would be the other difference in the way I calculate it). I give a point if there is a partile aspect or if a Planet is in its proper facing. To see facing, just print up a Natural/Flat Wheel and draw in the Planets that rule the Signs. As you can see, Mercury should always be inconjunct to Sun or Moon, Venus should always be in a sextile to Sun or Moon and so on. Jupiter Diurnal should be in a trine position to the Sun, Jupiter nocturnal a trine position to the Moon (and inconjunct to Saturn and so on).

Give 7 to the Planet that rules that day, and 6 to the Hour Ruler. Houses get points from 12 to 1 in this order: 1st 10th, 7th, 4th, 11th, 5th, 2nd, 9th, 8th, 3rd, 12th and 6th houses.

Do you use degree-based aspects only or also sign-based?

Degree. Apparently the Greeks used a 3° Orb and somehow that got blown into a 6° Orb and then they ended up with Moiety Orbs.

I use Moiety for applying, 3° for an Inferior separating and 6° for a Superior separating.

I guess it comes down to how you see a Planet influencing another as opposed to being connected/joined to another, because they aren't the same thing and that is something that appears to have been lost in translation(s).

And for effects in one's life - aspect to ASC, houses from ASC or Plac/Porp/Regio house?

Well, the Planet has to be connected in some way to the House it either rules or has dominion over (in the event the Planet is an Almuten).

It is enough for that Planet to be connected by Sign, rather than by aspect. Dr. Farr could probably explain that better, but it is the Greek concept of "witnessing" or "testifying."

If you are square to the Ascendant, or House you rule or have dominion over, then you are connected and even though you aren't at home (ie in the that House) you can pick up the phone and call, send a text message, send an e-mail or tell someone else to go to your home and deliver an important message or check on things.

If you are inconjunct to that House, you're cut off. You have no connection and so no control, sort of like being up in the Himalayas. There aren't any internet cafes or cell-phone towers or phone booths call home and check on things or give important information and you cannot see what is going on.
 

DiDi

Well-known member
After reading all this I dont know what is wright or wrong

I wish it were more simple
1 rule for all

however its not

im a liitle like claire19 I use placidus for my natal charts
if I put it into koch i get pisces 5th house when its incercepted in all other house systems.
doing a solar ark for when i got married using the placidus systme it was smack on.
I like to think of myself as a libral thinker but i cant get my head around whole house system as "I feel" only me not what is right or wrong...
that your making your natal chart have an equal system and thats not what the galaxy is doing. (now this could be that im inexperiance in this method so i cant see it working ) I have no idea to tell.

I have to say for horary i follow lilly so i do use regio when i can remember to press the correct button before casting the chart that is...
Im not any kind of expert and dont have enough in me to be one but i do love to learn.

I was using a 5deg rule but now i dont as it is where it is.

some people say cusp people are a mix of 2 signs
I dont see that, I have family on the cusp and they are all "what sign they are in"
infact i find the earlier the degrres in that sign the more of themselves they are. so why would i use the 5 deg rule makes me a hypercrite to do that.
 
Last edited:

BobZemco

Well-known member
I wish it were more simple.

Learn how to calculate the own Houses.

If you understood the theory behind the House Systems, then it makes it easier.

The work that I do using Primary Directions requires an Ecliptic-based system, so a Space-based system like Regiomontanus, Koch and such just don't work (not to mention that some of the theories behind the systems are bizarre and not based on astro-logic -- the Prime Vertical? it's not really relevant).

if I put it into koch i get pisces 5th house when its incercepted in all other house systems.

That doesn't matter. It is the 5th Sign that trines the Ascending Sign regardless if the 5th Sign appears on the 4th House Cusp or 6th House Cusp, the 5th & 6th or the 4th & 5th. The fact that Sign does or doesn't aspect the Ascending Sign is what's important, not it's House placement.

My Sun is in Gemini in the 7th House, but that doesn't alter the fact that Gemini is the 8th Sign and the fact that Sun is in the 7th House doesn't make Sun oppose the Ascendant. A Gemini Sun is inconjunct a Scorpio Ascendant and the Sun's House placement will not alter that reality.

doing a solar ark for when i got married using the placidus systme it was smack on.

Well, accidents happen.

I like to think of myself as a libral thinker but i cant get my head around whole house system as "I feel" only me not what is right or wrong...

But the chart operates on a Whole Sign/House System whether you actually use the Whole Sign System or not.

that your making your natal chart have an equal system and thats not what the galaxy is doing. (now this could be that im inexperiance in this method so i cant see it working ) I have no idea to tell.

No, you're right about the Equal System. Ptolemy never used it, in spite of what people claim.

I have to say for horary i follow lilly so i do use regio when i can remember to press the correct button before casting the chart that is...

Then that is astro-logical. If you're going to follow Lily's method, then you should use the House System he suggests, and the same for any other method (ie Alcabitius with Bonatti, Valens, and a few other Hellenistic Astroogers, Placidus with Placido and so on).

I was using a 5deg rule but now i dont as it is where it is.

Use it with any House System except Whole Sign.

If you are using Whole Sign, Ptolemy and many others considered the Ascendant Region to be 5° before the Ascending Degree and 25° after the Ascending Degree (and the Descendant Region would be the same, as well as the Midheaven Region).

some people say cusp people are a mix of 2 signs I dont see that, I have family on the cusp and they are all "what sign they are in" infact i find the earlier the degrres in that sign the more of themselves they are. so why would i use the 5 deg rule makes me a hypercrite to do that.

The 5° Rule only applies to Planets. A Planet within 5° of a House Cusp is considered to be in the House it is applying to, and it is read as though it is. Some used a graduated scale, 8° for an Angular House, 5° for a Succedent House and 3° for a Cadent House (Bonatti is one) but I don't see that either.

If you do Mundane Charts, you're limited to Porphyry or Alcabitius. You cannot use any other House Systems, because the Chart Ruler is derived based on the Planet with the most Dignity in certain House Cusps. A good example is the Balkan countries, they all have the same Rising Sign and Midheaven, yet only Greece is experiencing financial turmoil.

Why? Because the Chart Ruler for Greece is not the same as the Chart Ruler for the other countries, and a mere 2° difference in House Cusps changes everything.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Well, the Planet has to be connected in some way to the House it either rules or has dominion over (in the event the Planet is an Almuten).

It is enough for that Planet to be connected by Sign, rather than by aspect. Dr. Farr could probably explain that better, but it is the Greek concept of "witnessing" or "testifying."

If you are square to the Ascendant, or House you rule or have dominion over, then you are connected and even though you aren't at home (ie in the that House) you can pick up the phone and call, send a text message, send an e-mail or tell someone else to go to your home and deliver an important message or check on things.

If you are inconjunct to that House, you're cut off. You have no connection and so no control, sort of like being up in the Himalayas. There aren't any internet cafes or cell-phone towers or phone booths call home and check on things or give important information and you cannot see what is going on.

I understand the concept of 'witnessing' or 'testifying'. However a thought occurs to me, that if a planet is inconjunct the House it rules, could that inconjunct planet communicate some other way in order to get any of the matters of that house organised/accomplished? For example via its Sign ruler and/or Sign rulers? Or would an inconjunct planet only be able to get its sign ruler to help out if it is in aspect with its sign ruler? Or could the inconjunct planet get things done via its sign ruler if it is in mutual reception (or some form of reception) with its sign ruler?

Which brings me to the idea that, if other planets aspect the ruler of the Sign the inconjunct planet is in, are there any circumstances in which those other planets could act not only on behalf of the inconjunct planet's Sign ruler, but also ultimately act as 'messengers acting on behalf' of the inconjunct planet because the inconjunct planet's Sign Ruler has told them to do that? or would the inconjunct planet have to be in mutual reception (by exaltation, terms/bounds, domicile, Triplicity or a mix of these) with those other planets that aspect its sign ruler before anything, if anything, could be organised on its behalf by those planets?

What I am asking is, could an inconjunct planet be helped by the Exalted, term/bound, Triplicity as well as domicle ruler/rulers of its Sign? If so what would be the conditions governing such assistance? i.e could these conditions be related to mutual reception, mixed reception, aspecting?

Or is an inconjunct planet simply in total isolation in solitary confinement unable to either send or receive messages or hear or be heard - doomed?

I'm supposing that,for example, a planet inconjunct the Ascendant is not much helped by being conjunct any of the possibilities (exalted, term/bound, triplicity, domicile rulers of its sign) because those planets would then necessarily also be inconjunct the ascendant! However, if those exalted, term/bound, triplicity, domicile rulers of the inconjunct planet square, square other planets that are themselves sextile the ascendant, then perhaps the inconjunct planet is not totally unable to communicate with the Ascendant, even if the inconjunct planet cannot 'see it'... just thinking... :smile:
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
There is a vast (subtle energetic) inter-connection among the planets, via signs, via decans of signs, via duodenaries (dwads) of signs AND via point of space affinities (terms/bounds, sign monomoiria, planetary monomoiria) and then there is the connection via the planet's dodekatemorion-a MAJOR factor in Greco/Roman astrology right through Paulus Alexandrianus, Maximus, Olympiodorus and even through Rhetorius, which has been almost completely ignored in later Traditionalist astrology right through the current revival of Traditionalist and neo-Hellenistic interest.
So I would have to emphatically say "NO", a disconjunct planet is not necessarily locked into solitary confinement and is by ne means necessarily cut-off from sending or receiving influences-no way!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
There is a vast (subtle energetic) inter-connection among the planets, via signs, via decans of signs, via duodenaries (dwads) of signs AND via point of space affinities (terms/bounds, sign monomoiria, planetary monomoiria) and then there is the connection via the planet's dodekatemorion-a MAJOR factor in Greco/Roman astrology right through Paulus Alexandrianus, Maximus, Olympiodorus and even through Rhetorius, which has been almost completely ignored in later Traditionalist astrology right through the current revival of Traditionalist and neo-Hellenistic interest.
So I would have to emphatically say "NO", a disconjunct planet is not necessarily locked into solitary confinement and is by ne means necessarily cut-off from sending or receiving influences-no way!

thank you dr. farr for your succinct response - this is most intriguing and most interesting
and I venture to add, most probably a contentious subject matter. I have plenty to mull over... many thanks :smile:
 

byjove

Account Closed
Yes indeed! Very useful, intriguing and plenty to think about! Anyone interested in a thread to expend this knowledge? (especially if you've just added to your knowledge, or keen otherwise)

As you mentioned above JupiterASC, there are parts where I'm not sure 'which trumphs which' - and I was wondering about that ASC/planetary inconjunction myself. I remember Chris Brennan has more information on hellenistic natal interpretation which I don't remember being discussed here yet; signs which see each other, signs of 'equal light' etc. I'm probably butchering those terms - it's been a while since I re-read them. I feel like I need a 'cleaning' of astro. ideas, and to test I've categorized the information correctly and can interpret using this information.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
There is a vast (subtle energetic) inter-connection among the planets, via signs, via decans of signs, via duodenaries (dwads) of signs AND via point of space affinities (terms/bounds, sign monomoiria, planetary monomoiria) and then there is the connection via the planet's dodekatemorion-a MAJOR factor in Greco/Roman astrology right through Paulus Alexandrianus, Maximus, Olympiodorus and even through Rhetorius, which has been almost completely ignored in later Traditionalist astrology right through the current revival of Traditionalist and neo-Hellenistic interest.
So I would have to emphatically say "NO", a disconjunct planet is not necessarily locked into solitary confinement and is by ne means necessarily cut-off from sending or receiving influences-no way!

Yes indeed! Very useful, intriguing and plenty to think about! Anyone interested in a thread to expend this knowledge? (especially if you've just added to your knowledge, or keen otherwise)
As you mentioned above JupiterASC, there are parts where I'm not sure 'which trumphs which' - and I was wondering about that ASC/planetary inconjunction myself. I remember Chris Brennan has more information on hellenistic natal interpretation which I don't remember being discussed here yet; signs which see each other, signs of 'equal light' etc. I'm probably butchering those terms - it's been a while since I re-read them. I feel like I need a 'cleaning' of astro. ideas, and to test I've categorized the information correctly and can interpret using this information.

Such a thread would be most interesting byjove! :smile:
 

byjove

Account Closed
Do any of the older authors believe that planets are exalted by sign, rather than sign and a particular degree? I'm a little unsure given some of the works I've been reading.

Are there any good resources anyone can recommend for older interpretations? Some of the major aspects in Lily's and Valen's work I find to be a little thin on explanation (not all, just some, including some pertinent to me). :whistling:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Do any of the older authors believe that planets are exalted by sign, rather than sign and a particular degree? I'm a little unsure given some of the works I've been reading.

Are there any good resources anyone can recommend for older interpretations? Some of the major aspects in Lily's and Valen's work I find to be a little thin on explanation (not all, just some, including some pertinent to me). :whistling:

Do not be too hasty or harsh in your judgement of Valens work! Much that was written by Valens has vanished in the mists of time. What we have is a mere fragment!

Perhaps dr. farr may be of some assistance to you but as he may not have read your post - why not send him a pm ? :smile:
 

byjove

Account Closed
Agreed...no harshness! I'm back after being away for a bit. I want to explore some more things, and understanding dignity from older perspectives is one major thing I want to do. I noticed in Valen's work that he seemed to encourage patience when considering a planet's real abilities, nature, positive/negative tendencies etc. Since we're delving deep into older practices here, I wonder if I could leave that one out to tender - an example:

what if a planet is opposing a planet in the sign it rules? what does that mean? It's effects?

or what is the condition of a planet in triplicity (and say sign-exaltation) but out of sect?

I don't remember seeing these kinds of question discussed in a modern interpretation. I did read something about the ambiguity of 'harmonious' trines e.g. Sun trine Jupiter and the caveats with that, but then some other Sun trines are thin on detail...and yet I'd tend to focus on Sun, Moon, ASC+ruler and almuten of the chart, so I'm looking to fill some gaps there.
 
Last edited:

BobZemco

Well-known member
if a planet is inconjunct the House it rules, could that inconjunct planet communicate some other way in order to get any of the matters of that house organised/accomplished?


Yes, it could be in an applying aspect to another Planet, which is in turn in an applying aspect to a 3rd Planet in the inconjunct House/Sign. That is essentially a Transfer of Light.
For example via its Sign ruler and/or Sign rulers?

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean the Dispositor of the inconjunct Planet being in the House/Sign of the inconjunct Planet, that is a weak form of Mutual Reception. When two Planets are in adjacent Signs, there's a possibility of Reception by Equal Ascension or Equal Power.

What I am asking is, could an inconjunct planet be helped by the Exalted, term/bound, Triplicity as well as domicle ruler/rulers of its Sign?

The Exaltation Ruler could. Probably the most obvious example would be Mars in Aries with Sun in Scorpio.

Mars would be inconjunct Scorpio, but with the Sun there, they are in Mutual Reception. Understand that without an aspect, that would be very weak control.

Or is an inconjunct planet simply in total isolation in solitary confinement unable to either send or receive messages or hear or be heard - doomed?

Now you're talking more or less a Feral Planet.

You can see one here:

attachment.php


Jupiter aspects the Ascendant Region by sextile, but is inconjunct Pisces.

See also how Jupiter is totally cut off from all the other Planets, since all are in Signs inconjunct to Jupiter.

That is the original "Singleton Planet."

I would love to tell you about it, but I have practically no experience since they are very rare in charts.

However, just to caution you, the Chart Ruler there is Venus (whether you do it ibn Ezra's way or my way) and Venus is inconjunct the Ascending Sign, but she is within the power region of the Ascendant, and that is what you need to be aware of.

Remember the Ascendant is rising clock-wise toward the Midheaven and dragging/pulling the 2nd Sign/House immediately with it. Here Venus is within 25° of the Ascending Degree, so Venus can exercise influence there.

The Sun I would consider inconjunct the Ascendant, but not Venus (nor Mercury).

In looking at that chart, with Venus as Chart Ruler and Jupiter as both Ascendant Ruler and the Almuten of the Ascendant (Jupiter by Sign and is Fire Sect Triplicity Ruler) he had a great deal of control over his life, but he was unable to do that effectively, because Venus is Combust and Jupiter is Feral.

It's possible that influenced him by leading him to a state of hopelessness and despair, and he eventually committed suicide.
 
Top