Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
Introduction
For a long time now, I’ve been pushing for a separation from the ideas of the X=Y=Z system, with the argument that it’s completely destroyed the traditional philosophy of astrology. One of my friends actually proposed the idea that I seriously write this little article wherein I compare and contrast the modern X=Y=Z system and the Traditional system. It’s actually something I’m a little embarrassed about. Embarrassed that I didn’t really want to do this before, and that I was too arrogant to realize that I wasn’t always aware of this differentiation between the systems, and that I turn around and expect the world to have come to a similar realization around the same time I did. It doesn’t work this way.
Certainly, the world of astrology would be so much easier if everyone agreed on the same system, but we all know this is not the case and will most likely never be the case. However, as my friend pointed out to me, it’s not always people’s faults that they are ignorant of other systems and are only using the system (no matter how right or wrong that system is) that they have been introduced to. Looking at this in the same way, I was also ignorant of the traditional system, fully content to accept the modern X=Y=Z system that I learned from “crappy books” (again, quoting my friend).
In an attempt to dispel as much ignorance in the world as I can, I’m going to present both systems here. It doesn’t much matter to me what system you ultimately decide to choose and stick with, I’m not trying to convince anyone to switch thinking, but you are not allowed to be ignorant after reading this. That’s the only rule.
Before we begin, perhaps it’s best to show what I mean.
Also, be sure to keep this in mind:
X=Y=Z?
To begin with, it’s best to explain this term. You won’t find “X=Y=Z” in any sort of astrological glossary, it’s a term I’ve coined myself and spread to other astrologers via excessive usage in much frustrated ranting. In astrological usage, the three variables can be switched for particular astrological objects. X is a house, Y is a Sign of the Zodiac, and Z is a planet. This system is generally used in modern astrology cookbooks, perhaps they are used for the sake of simplicity, but in the end they only serve to confuse students who will eventually be faced with a different system later on in their astrological career. There are fifteen astrological formulas that fall under the jurisdiction of the X=Y=Z mentality, in text, they generally look like this:
So, you would transform this text into the first of the X=Y=Z formula to get: First=Aries=Mars wherein they all equal the same thing, in this case physical appearance and expression. Now, remember, there are fifteen of these formulas and they are:
First=Aries=Mars
Second=Taurus=Venus
Third=Gemini=Mercury
Fourth=Cancer=Moon
Fifth=Leo=Sun
Sixth=Virgo=Mercury
Seventh=Libra=Venus
Eighth=Scorpio=Pluto
Ninth=Sagittarius=Jupiter
Tenth=Capricorn=Saturn
Eleventh=Aquarius=Uranus
Twelfth=Pisces=Neptune
Depending on the astrological opinion of the author, you may also see these three formulas, though they are much less commonly acknowledged:
Eighth=Scorpio=Mars
Eleventh=Aquarius=Saturn
Twelfth=Pisces=Jupiter
Now, the big question: what’s wrong with this system? Well, besides the fact that it is far too watered down and it completely disregards the traditional astrological philosophy that has set the foundation of the very art we study, not much. Unfortunately, to answer this question fully and intelligently will take some time and effort, and is definitely far too difficult to squish into one sizeable tablet for easy digestion. I will, however, attempt to tackle it, part by part.
Traditional Philosophy?
Since I’ve given a brief overview of the definition of X=Y=Z, I feel I should do the same for traditional philosophy. The short definition would be the ideas and reasons traditional authors have been writing since the foundation of astrology. Such authors as Manilius, Al Biruni, Culpeper, Lilly, and Ramesey, who set, continued, and expanded astrology as it is today, or at least, as it would have been without the interference of X=Y=Z.
Beginning of X=Y=Z
It’s difficult to find the first mentions of X=Y=Z in astrology, but perhaps 17th century astrologer William Lilly inadvertently set the stage for its appearance in his Christian Astrology book. In it, Lilly assigns the Signs to houses as ‘co-significators’; these ‘co-significators’ match up to the X=Y=Z formulas in the respect that Lilly did write Aries to co-signify the First, Taurus the Second and so on.
Apparently, the only thing the Signs and houses have always had in common was rulership of specific parts of the anatomy. This was the basis of Lilly’s co-significator system relating houses and Signs together. It seems that Lilly noticed this scheme was constant throughout astrological tradition, or at least had very little variation through the ages and he saw it a strong enough link between Signs and houses to relate them to each other. This does not mean that he agreed with the notion that Signs and houses were in some way related and that the houses derived their meanings from the Signs assigned to them as co-significator, but just that he noticed this astrological anatomical connection between these two fields and felt it significant enough to connect them in this manner. Little did Lilly know that he was setting the stage for someone to misinterpret his intent, and this is the most likely cause of Signs and houses being equated with one another. This idea, though, only accounts for X=Y, but where did the Z in X=Y=Z come from? Was it a misunderstanding based on ignorance and due to a lack of information? Or was it simply the result of dumbing-down well established tradition for the consumption of the masses?
My notes
I'm going to submit a different house every few days. Originally, I had the idea to submit it all at the same time, but then I had people tell me it would be too much to absorb. So, I'm going to break it up.
Dedication
I'm dedicating this article to my friends Gary and Julie. Thanks for helping me out with it and getting everything down on paper, and thanks for double-checking my horrible errors and whatnot! Thanks for always being there. You two mean a lot to me!
Sources Cited
Hampar, Joann. Electional Astrology: The Art of Timing. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Worldwide, 2005.
Holden, Ralph. The Elements of House Division. London, England: Fowler, 1977
Houlding, Deborah. The Houses: Temples of the Sky. Bournemouth, England: Wessex Astrologer, 2006.
Lilly, William. Christian Astrology 1, 2, & 3. London, England: Regulus, 1647.
Sasportas, Howard. The Twelve Houses. London, England: Aquarian Press, 1985
For a long time now, I’ve been pushing for a separation from the ideas of the X=Y=Z system, with the argument that it’s completely destroyed the traditional philosophy of astrology. One of my friends actually proposed the idea that I seriously write this little article wherein I compare and contrast the modern X=Y=Z system and the Traditional system. It’s actually something I’m a little embarrassed about. Embarrassed that I didn’t really want to do this before, and that I was too arrogant to realize that I wasn’t always aware of this differentiation between the systems, and that I turn around and expect the world to have come to a similar realization around the same time I did. It doesn’t work this way.
Certainly, the world of astrology would be so much easier if everyone agreed on the same system, but we all know this is not the case and will most likely never be the case. However, as my friend pointed out to me, it’s not always people’s faults that they are ignorant of other systems and are only using the system (no matter how right or wrong that system is) that they have been introduced to. Looking at this in the same way, I was also ignorant of the traditional system, fully content to accept the modern X=Y=Z system that I learned from “crappy books” (again, quoting my friend).
In an attempt to dispel as much ignorance in the world as I can, I’m going to present both systems here. It doesn’t much matter to me what system you ultimately decide to choose and stick with, I’m not trying to convince anyone to switch thinking, but you are not allowed to be ignorant after reading this. That’s the only rule.
Before we begin, perhaps it’s best to show what I mean.
Also, be sure to keep this in mind:
X=Y=Z?
To begin with, it’s best to explain this term. You won’t find “X=Y=Z” in any sort of astrological glossary, it’s a term I’ve coined myself and spread to other astrologers via excessive usage in much frustrated ranting. In astrological usage, the three variables can be switched for particular astrological objects. X is a house, Y is a Sign of the Zodiac, and Z is a planet. This system is generally used in modern astrology cookbooks, perhaps they are used for the sake of simplicity, but in the end they only serve to confuse students who will eventually be faced with a different system later on in their astrological career. There are fifteen astrological formulas that fall under the jurisdiction of the X=Y=Z mentality, in text, they generally look like this:
Some random astrology cookbook said:The First house, ruled by Aries and thus Mars, is linked with our physical appearance, expression, etc.
So, you would transform this text into the first of the X=Y=Z formula to get: First=Aries=Mars wherein they all equal the same thing, in this case physical appearance and expression. Now, remember, there are fifteen of these formulas and they are:
First=Aries=Mars
Second=Taurus=Venus
Third=Gemini=Mercury
Fourth=Cancer=Moon
Fifth=Leo=Sun
Sixth=Virgo=Mercury
Seventh=Libra=Venus
Eighth=Scorpio=Pluto
Ninth=Sagittarius=Jupiter
Tenth=Capricorn=Saturn
Eleventh=Aquarius=Uranus
Twelfth=Pisces=Neptune
Depending on the astrological opinion of the author, you may also see these three formulas, though they are much less commonly acknowledged:
Eighth=Scorpio=Mars
Eleventh=Aquarius=Saturn
Twelfth=Pisces=Jupiter
Now, the big question: what’s wrong with this system? Well, besides the fact that it is far too watered down and it completely disregards the traditional astrological philosophy that has set the foundation of the very art we study, not much. Unfortunately, to answer this question fully and intelligently will take some time and effort, and is definitely far too difficult to squish into one sizeable tablet for easy digestion. I will, however, attempt to tackle it, part by part.
Traditional Philosophy?
Since I’ve given a brief overview of the definition of X=Y=Z, I feel I should do the same for traditional philosophy. The short definition would be the ideas and reasons traditional authors have been writing since the foundation of astrology. Such authors as Manilius, Al Biruni, Culpeper, Lilly, and Ramesey, who set, continued, and expanded astrology as it is today, or at least, as it would have been without the interference of X=Y=Z.
Beginning of X=Y=Z
It’s difficult to find the first mentions of X=Y=Z in astrology, but perhaps 17th century astrologer William Lilly inadvertently set the stage for its appearance in his Christian Astrology book. In it, Lilly assigns the Signs to houses as ‘co-significators’; these ‘co-significators’ match up to the X=Y=Z formulas in the respect that Lilly did write Aries to co-signify the First, Taurus the Second and so on.
Apparently, the only thing the Signs and houses have always had in common was rulership of specific parts of the anatomy. This was the basis of Lilly’s co-significator system relating houses and Signs together. It seems that Lilly noticed this scheme was constant throughout astrological tradition, or at least had very little variation through the ages and he saw it a strong enough link between Signs and houses to relate them to each other. This does not mean that he agreed with the notion that Signs and houses were in some way related and that the houses derived their meanings from the Signs assigned to them as co-significator, but just that he noticed this astrological anatomical connection between these two fields and felt it significant enough to connect them in this manner. Little did Lilly know that he was setting the stage for someone to misinterpret his intent, and this is the most likely cause of Signs and houses being equated with one another. This idea, though, only accounts for X=Y, but where did the Z in X=Y=Z come from? Was it a misunderstanding based on ignorance and due to a lack of information? Or was it simply the result of dumbing-down well established tradition for the consumption of the masses?
My notes
I'm going to submit a different house every few days. Originally, I had the idea to submit it all at the same time, but then I had people tell me it would be too much to absorb. So, I'm going to break it up.
Dedication
I'm dedicating this article to my friends Gary and Julie. Thanks for helping me out with it and getting everything down on paper, and thanks for double-checking my horrible errors and whatnot! Thanks for always being there. You two mean a lot to me!
Sources Cited
Hampar, Joann. Electional Astrology: The Art of Timing. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Worldwide, 2005.
Holden, Ralph. The Elements of House Division. London, England: Fowler, 1977
Houlding, Deborah. The Houses: Temples of the Sky. Bournemouth, England: Wessex Astrologer, 2006.
Lilly, William. Christian Astrology 1, 2, & 3. London, England: Regulus, 1647.
Sasportas, Howard. The Twelve Houses. London, England: Aquarian Press, 1985
Last edited: