House ruled by the Sun

I've seen many astrological theories that put a lot of emphasis on the Sun.

Also, many that emphasizes the Ascendant or MC.

What I found weird is that I don't remember to have read a theory that emphasized the "house ruled by the Sun" by any means - what would at first seem a natural consequence of considering the Sun as very important.

I know there are many different approaches to the concept of "houses", but that's not my point, but rather the apparent paradox of giving an enormous value to the Sun, but not to the house it rules.

Are there perhaps doctrines that give value to it and I don't know? What do you think about this question?

aldebaran said:

I've seen many astrological theories that put a lot of emphasis on the Sun.

Also, many that emphasizes the Ascendant or MC.

What I found weird is
that I don't remember to have read a theory that emphasized
the "house ruled by the Sun" by any means
- what would at first seem a natural consequence
of considering the Sun as very important.

I know there are many different approaches to the concept of "houses",
but that's not my point, but rather the apparent paradox of giving an enormous value to the Sun
but not to the house it rules.

Are there perhaps doctrines that give value to it and I don't know?
What do you think about this question?

Click to expand...

You have posted your thread on our Traditional board
and
traditional BASICS are that:

A PLANET acts

A HOUSE shows the area of life
in which the planet acts

as well as
how strongly the planet can act


In this case the planet under consideration is the SUN

traditionally then
the house location of THE SUN
indicates the TOPIC which THE SUN influences


THE FOLLOWING DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATES TRADITIONAL HOUSE TOPICS

AND THEN
whether the house is Angular, Succedent or Cadent

determines the strength of THE SUNS actions relevant to that house
because
The houses are not all equal in strength and power.
If a planet is located in an angular house
it is much more forceful in its effects
than it would be in a cadent house.

On page 48 of Christian Astrology Lilly writes:
The angles are most powerful
the succeedents are next in virtue
the cadents poor and of little efficacy:
the succeedent houses follow the angles
the cadents come next [after] the succeedents.
In force and virtue they stand so in order:
The meaning whereof is this
that two planets equally dignified
the one in the Ascendant, the other in the tenth house
you shall judge the planet in the Ascendant somewhat of more power
to effect what he is significator of, than he that is in the tenth:
do so in the rest as they stand in order
remembering that planets in angles
do more forcibly show their effects
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/horary1d.html

ALSO
keep in mind that the Sun is not always located in the house it rules
i.e.
SUN is traditional ruler of LEO
but
SUN may be in any of the twelve signs
and that makes a difference as well

i.e.
traditionally
the SIGN on that house occupied by THE SUN
influences the quality of THE SUNS expression
so the quality of THE SUNS expression varies
depending on whether SUN is in its home sign LEO
or
in any of the other remaining signs

ultimately as dr. farr often reminds us
it is THE TOTALITY OF TESTIMONIES that is important
- not just one factor

so the House ruled by the Sun is important WITHIN THE CONTEXT
of the natal promise of the totality of the natal chart

Great post, Jupiterasc, it puts the question in a more specific scene.

I post this in the traditional because I see that in this genre more often is put attention on "house rulers"(whether house system is used) than in modern/psychological, but of course the question would still have value under other perspectives.

I realized the question then would not be only about the house that the Sun rules, but also about the house where it is.

Nonetheless, I'm more intrigued by the house it rules, because the house where it is will often be ruled by another planet.

It's clear that the question I'm making can be also put about the Moon, which often receives more importance than the other planets, but I resumed it to Sun to be more brief.

So...Once the Sun guides and rules a specific house of the horoscope, and the Sun is - according to many theories - a very special and clearly of outmost importance force, and the Sun guiding a house is somehow a link between this outmost force and that house... Why not the house ruled by the Sun would receive at least a little more emphasis because of that?

It's a speculative question, of course, more in the field of theory/metaphysics than specific practice.

I'm also curious if there were in thousand years of different astrological theories some astrology school or author perhaps that gave some special importance to this house... I've always seen the angular houses emphasized, like Jupiterasc described.

The ascendant ruler would normally take precedence over the house ruled by the sun, at least in traditional astrology. E.g., if you read a trad book and it refers to someone born under Virgo, it means Virgo was rising at the time of birth, not that the person had the sun in Virgo.

Sun signs didn't become hugely important until the late 1800s to early 1900s with modern astrology.

Oddity said:

The ascendant ruler would normally take precedence over the house ruled by the sun, at least in traditional astrology. E.g., if you read a trad book and it refers to someone born under Virgo, it means Virgo was rising at the time of birth, not that the person had the sun in Virgo.

Sun signs didn't become hugely important until the late 1800s to early 1900s with modern astrology.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Ascendant "rivalizes" with the Sun in this matter, inasmuch as the Moon. I don't have a choice though of what was mostly the preferred.

Nonetheless, the Sun (and Moon) still had a prominent importance; they are present in Part of Fortune calcul, the Lunar nodes are calculated by them; the Sun bears such important notions as of combust or cazimi, besides syzygy, eclipses, etc. It's usually identified with such an important thing as "conscience".

At least for authors that see the Sun as the conscience giver and the most prominent of the planets, it would make sense to extend a little of this glory to his ruled house? They did it? If not, why not?
I think it's a meaningful question.

aldebaran said:

I agree that the Ascendant "rivalizes" with the Sun in this matter, inasmuch as the Moon. I don't have a choice though of what was mostly the preferred.

Nonetheless, the Sun (and Moon) still had a prominent importance; they are present in Part of Fortune calcul, the Lunar nodes are calculated by them; the Sun bears such important notions as of combust or cazimi, besides syzygy, eclipses, etc. It's usually identified with such an important thing as "conscience".

At least for authors that see the Sun as the conscience giver and the most prominent of the planets, it would make sense to extend a little of this glory to his ruled house? They did it? If not, why not?
I think it's a meaningful question.

Click to expand...

"The suns glory" traditionally is dependent on its ESSENTIAL DIGNITY
and
ACCIDENTAL DIGNITY

traditionally, it's that simple



UNDERSTANDING PLANETARY DIGNITY AND DEBILITY http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dignities.html

aldebaran said:

I agree that the Ascendant "rivalizes" with the Sun in this matter, inasmuch as the Moon. I don't have a choice though of what was mostly the preferred.

Nonetheless, the Sun (and Moon) still had a prominent importance; they are present in Part of Fortune calcul, the Lunar nodes are calculated by them; the Sun bears such important notions as of combust or cazimi, besides syzygy, eclipses, etc. It's usually identified with such an important thing as "conscience".

At least for authors that see the Sun as the conscience giver and the most prominent of the planets, it would make sense to extend a little of this glory to his ruled house? They did it? If not, why not?
I think it's a meaningful question.

Click to expand...

So you are asking if Leo (and Cancer by extension), ergo the signs ruled by the Luminaries, have more relevance/influence in a general sense than the other signs?

The answer would be no.

My guess would be that the house ruled by the Sun would have a prominent importance - that is the idea I had.

This "prominent importance" would be proportional to the one the Sun has - supposing an author that considers the Sun having a prominent meaning.

Even if we agree that for the most regular tradition we would use solely dignities and the Sun would be a planet just like the other 6; There are at least some authors that emphasized the Sun, and I'm asking in the Traditional session exactly because it encompasses thousands of years of literature and perhaps someone know of an author that wrote something in that direction.

My idea is: Sun has prominent importance(example: gives conscience) > house ruled by the Sun works under his guidance > this house gets a similar important role.

So, Leo on cusp of 3rd would make 3rd more important (in the same sense the author considers the Sun more important), Leo on cusp of 6th would make the 6th, etc.

In my own astrological researchs I found that idea interesting, and it has in my understanding a certain logic of it's own, supposing that every single author that we know refused it, it would be nonetheless interesting to know why.

And if someone doesn't see a logic in it, I would like to know why; under what astrological fundaments this wouldn't make sense. My interest is really speculative.

I'm just not satisfied with finishing the question by considering the Sun a normal planet just like the other 6, because at least for some traditional authors, it wasn't this way.

Could you give us the traditional citations that privilege the sun over the other planets?

I don't want to focus on this debate. I don't think someone would defend that any of the hundreds of ancient authors ever put any more importance on the Sun or Moon over the other 5 planets by any possible means. The fact that the triplicity rulers are considered regarding Day or Night birth and Sun and Moon position, and the very important Part of Fortune, I think is sufficient about this point.

So, I let the question open, with the sole speculative intent. If the Sun has a prominence, why not his house?

I think the closest you may get here is that the sun and moon are the king and queen of heaven, rule one sign each, are said by some authors to have a measure of dignity in each other's signs, and are the lights of time. The light of time is where the triplicity rulers come in.

If you want to privilege the sun's house, you can do that, but you're not going to find much, if any, support in traditional astrology for that.

Oddity said:

I think the closest you may get here is that the sun and moon are the king and queen of heaven, rule one sign each, are said by some authors to have a measure of dignity in each other's signs, and are the lights of time. The light of time is where the triplicity rulers come in.

If you want to privilege the sun's house, you can do that, but you're not going to find much, if any, support in traditional astrology for that.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your explanation.

"but you're not going to find much, if any, " That's the point I was interested, and what would be the relation between any Sun's special prerrogative and it's ruled house. (even if giving the Sun special prerrogative is something rare).

Ancient literature is a treasure where you never know what you'll find, even if in appearance it might look regular and default sometimes, with attention, it's pretty much other thing.

Oh, yeah. I've been studying astrology for over fifty years and there is still so much I don't know.

But...I have not come across what you're suggesting. The sun's position can be privileged, note the various emperors throughtout history whose birth time was announced as noon. Especially on a solstice or equinox

Oddity said:

are said by some authors to have a measure of dignity in each other's signs

Click to expand...

This concept has always interested me. I don't remember where I did read that, but I've seen it mention too.

Do you have any compelling source odd? I would like to investigate this a bit further.

Ibn Ezra, Book of Reasons, Ch. III, at least that's where google tells me you find the quote, too hot and tired to go through all my ibn Ezra to verify it:

...as they are both rulers, the domiciles are considered as belonging to one ruler.

And goes into a discussion of like-engirdling. For example, Gemini and Virgo because of Mercury. He considers sun/moon Cancer/Leo as the same thing.

There might be something in Masha'allah as well, if memory serves, but heatwave + half the province burning and smoke everywhere does not make for the best research skills.

Oddity said:

Ibn Ezra, Book of Reasons, Ch. III, at least that's where google tells me you find the quote, too hot and tired to go through all my ibn Ezra to verify it:

...as they are both rulers, the domiciles are considered as belonging to one ruler.

And goes into a discussion of like-engirdling. For example, Gemini and Virgo because of Mercury. He considers sun/moon Cancer/Leo as the same thing.

There might be something in Masha'allah as well, if memory serves, but heatwave + half the province burning and smoke everywhere does not make for the best research skills.

Click to expand...

Ty odd.

How is the concept of lights of time developed? In what it consists?

I always imagined that the doctrine of triplicities divided humanity/ontology in two kinds of beings: those of the day, those of the night; this, cause I inferred that the chose of the triplicity using the luminar, and this being the first step of it, would have a great importance.
Perhaps my imagination went ahead of the practical astrology, but what would be this concept of lights of time about?