When to use Equal House System

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Greetings.
When would one use the equal house system?
What is the benefit, advantage, or rationale for using this system?
Thanks.
Every astrologer has their own preferred house system :smile:
so it is simply a matter of opinion regarding "rationale"

because

There are at least twenty or thirty different house systems
or means of dividing the so-called "birthchart"
into twelve segments of life activity.
In astrology, houses, mansions, or domains
represent general areas of life activity
and are the grounding areas or arenas of expression for planets.
Originally, the words "houses" and "signs" were interchangeable.
A planet in the SIGN of Aries
was also a planet in the HOUSE of Aries
so that in effect houses as we know them today did not exist
Artificial divisions now known as houses were attempts by early Greeks and Hindus to measure strength "points" in the horoscope
which during 7th and 8th centuries AD were construed
or confused
as means of dividing the birth chart.
The ascendant and midheaven degrees and their opposites were definite power points
or areas of intense focus
but not necessarily the beginnings of a house or quadrant

The Whole Sign House system was used by the ancient Greeks
and the Hindus (who still use it today).
It is the oldest and simplest house system in existence
and immediately eliminates the awful mess
astrologers have made on the issue over the last 1300 years or so
 

Osamenor

Staff member
I think the greatest benefit of equal house is for people who were born at high latitudes (Scandinavia, Alaska, northern Canada, etc.) In those cases, quadrant-based house systems make their houses wildly different sizes. One house might encompass three or four signs, while one or two sign pairs have as many as three or four house cusps each. With equal house, each house is discernible, but not so much in Placidus or Koch or other quadrant systems. The unequal house effect is more pronounced the higher the latitude and the closer the birthdate is to the summer or winter solstice.

At lower latitudes--from the equator to about the 45th-50th parallel--houses drawn in quadrant systems are usually not perfectly equal (except around the equator), but they're not that wildly unequal, either. In those cases, I don't think there's any real benefit to equal house, because it doesn't make the chart any easier to work with.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I think of Placidus and Whole-sign as two cohesively different "life-paths".
Some Charts make more sense with Placidus, others with Whole-sign. So, check them both, as to which is a better fit.
 

Witchyone

Well-known member
After doing research on the various house systems a few months ago, I decided that a modified Placidus (I've now forgotten the name of the system) made the most sense to me scientifically, but very few online calculators work with that system, so I just use Placidus, which is the default on most sites (and it was nearly identical to my preferred system).

This inconsistency does drive me a little crazy, though, because a friend who is a great astrologer uses Whole (Equal) houses. She talks about my first-house Venus and second-house sun, and that confuses me, since my sun is in the first house and Venus in the 12th when I draw a chart. Other big differences too: Mercury and Saturn in the third instead of the second, Mars in the 4th instead of the third, NN and Neptune in the 8th instead of the 7th. It's a completely different way of viewing my chart, and therefore, my self. Lately she's been talking about transits through my first and 8th houses that are, of course, different than the transit charts I pull. It makes my head spin.

It suddenly occurs to me that it might be useful and illuminating to fully explore my natal chart as whole house...just to see what changes.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Thanks for the reply.

I understood that equal house is not the same as whole sign houses.

Is that correct?

Same advice applies: Try a House system, and compare the results to another House system. Equal House (which I don't use) is similar to Placidus because in both cases the Asc marks the cusp of the 1st House. In Whole-sign, whatever Sign the Asc is in becomes coincidental with the 1st House, and each Sign after that is coincidental with each House. There's more potential for changes in House placement moving from Placidus to Whole-sign, so if you're looking for significant differences, use that. If it's more like fine-tuning, where the changes are likely to be less extreme, use Equal House.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Thanks for the reply.

I understood that equal house is not the same as whole sign houses.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Whole sign houses makes each sign a house. The sign the ascendant is in is the first house, the sign after that is the second house, and so on.

Equal house starts the first house at the ascendant and makes each house exactly 30 degrees. Unless the ascendant is at zero degrees of its sign, that doesn't make each sign a house in itself.

For example, my chart: the ascendant is at 3 degrees Capricorn. In a whole sign version of my chart, my first house starts at zero Capricorn, second house at zero Aquarius, and so on. In equal house, every house starts at 3 degrees of its sign.

The difference is even more pronounced in charts with a late degree ascendant. For example, suppose someone's ascendant is at 28 Taurus. In whole sign, all of Taurus would be their first house, all of Gemini would be their second house, and so on. In equal house, most of Taurus is in their twelfth house--first house doesn't begin until 28 Taurus--and most of Gemini is in their first, and so on.
 

david starling

Well-known member
That is correct.

Whole sign houses makes each sign a house. The sign the ascendant is in is the first house, the sign after that is the second house, and so on.

Equal house starts the first house at the ascendant and makes each house exactly 30 degrees. Unless the ascendant is at zero degrees of its sign, that doesn't make each sign a house in itself.

For example, my chart: the ascendant is at 3 degrees Capricorn. In a whole sign version of my chart, my first house starts at zero Capricorn, second house at zero Aquarius, and so on. In equal house, every house starts at 3 degrees of its sign.

The difference is even more pronounced in charts with a late degree ascendant. For example, suppose someone's ascendant is at 28 Taurus. In whole sign, all of Taurus would be their first house, all of Gemini would be their second house, and so on. In equal house, most of Taurus is in their twelfth house--first house doesn't begin until 28 Taurus--and most of Gemini is in their first, and so on.

Equal House is the same as Placidus, in that regard.
 

david starling

Well-known member
In what regard?

The way you word it makes it sound like Placidus makes each house exactly 30 degrees. It doesn't. That's the difference between equal house and Placidus.

No, I meant that both Equal House and Placidus start H1 at the Ascendant. So, in my case, for example, I'd have four Planets in H12 in both Equal House and Placidus. But, in Whole-sign, two of those are in H1, and two are in H12. As you move through the other Houses, though, Equal House can make a lot of changes compared to the unequal Placidus Houses.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Just to be clear, technically there are two kinds of equal house systems. (EHS)

(1) The one that most people mean by EHS, which locates the ascendant, and then gives every other house cusp the same degree.

(2) Whole signs houses, where each house starts at 0 degrees of the sign, so that spatially the sign and house are co-equal. In both cases, each house will be an equal 30 degrees. The MC is typically "buried" within a house and sign in the EHS. In whole signs, both the AS and MC are typically located inside of a house and sign, and do not form a house cusp.

Then the other house systems are quadrant house systems, where the AC-DC and MC-IC axis form house cusps. Examples are Placidus (the Astrodienst default house system,) Koch, Alcibitus,and Regiomontanus. The Porphyry system is a bit of a hybrid, also putting the chart's angles as house cusps, but then dividing the house quarters into 3 equal sections apiece.

The whole signs system was probably the oldest system, dating from ancient Hellenistic astrology, followed by Porphyry in late Antiquity. However, most of the house systems in common use pre-dated the 19th century, and thus would have to be considered "traditional," as well. Koch is modern, but I understand it to be a tweaking of Placidus, which is not.

The difference with the quadrant systems depends on the math, and concept of the earth surrounded by planets. There is a good explanation of the formulas behind the different house systems at: https://www.scribd.com/doc/6495552/An-Astrological-House-Formulary

Osamenor pointed out the problems with house systems at high latitudes, where you can get several huge houses, and then some very tiny ones. The problem isn't quite solved by an equal house system, where you can get the MC located in the 12th house.

Generally for a really high latitude birth with really skewed quandrant system houses, I'd probably use whole signs, although I believe astrologers working in Scandinavia, Scotland, &c prefer equal houses.

I agree with the consensus here: choose the system that best describes you-- and your life events. By transit and progression, you should see changes in your life when a planet leaves one house and enters the next one.

The Astrodienst. www.astro.com free charts pages have a big selection of house systems for you to try.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Thanks for the reply.
I understood that equal house is not the same as whole sign houses.
Is that correct?
When using WHOLE SIGN HOUSES as originally intended
i.e. as dr. farr describes
Whole Sign Houses includes Equal House
via "sensitive points" within each house

Forgive my ignorance.
I thought they were the same, so I guess my response is irrelevant.


dr. farr has studied astrology for more than fifty years
including an in-depth study of history of astrology
and the application of genuine whole sign methods to chart delineation
as explained in previous discussion :smile:
for example at https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=311413#post311413
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...
 

IleneK

Premium Member
Every astrologer has their own preferred house system :smile:
The Whole Sign House system was used by the ancient Greeks
and the Hindus (who still use it today).
It is the oldest and simplest house system in existence
immediately eliminates the awful mess
astrologers have made on the issue over the last 1300 years or so


As JA notes, Whole Sign houses clarify and simplify delineation. That is why I appreciate using it.
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Staff member
Osamenor pointed out the problems with house systems at high latitudes, where you can get several huge houses, and then some very tiny ones. The problem isn't quite solved by an equal house system, where you can get the MC located in the 12th house.

How is it a problem if the MC is located in the twelfth house?

I tend to think of it as just another layer of meaning. If the MC is not located in the tenth house whole sign--or the tenth house equal house, if the ascendant-based equal house system is being used--that just puts a hint of some other house into the native's career and public reputation. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt's MC was in her eleventh house whole sign--in Libra--and she's a shining example of someone who made her public reputation in an eleventh house and Libran way: focused on social justice issues.

Any way you could equalize the houses for people born at high latitudes is usually not going to put their MC in the tenth.

I recently saw a chart on here with the MC and AC in the same sign. The native was born in Iceland, in the month of January. Classic example of wildly unequal houses.
 

waybread

Well-known member
How is it a problem if the MC is located in the twelfth house?

I tend to think of it as just another layer of meaning. If the MC is not located in the tenth house whole sign--or the tenth house equal house, if the ascendant-based equal house system is being used--that just puts a hint of some other house into the native's career and public reputation. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt's MC was in her eleventh house whole sign--in Libra--and she's a shining example of someone who made her public reputation in an eleventh house and Libran way: focused on social justice issues.

Any way you could equalize the houses for people born at high latitudes is usually not going to put their MC in the tenth.

I recently saw a chart on here with the MC and AC in the same sign. The native was born in Iceland, in the month of January. Classic example of wildly unequal houses.

It doesn't need to be a problem, unless one is into traditional meanings of houses. I practice modern choice-centered astrology, but I try to be informed by traditional astrology. Of late, it guides my thinking more than the more extreme forms of esoteric and New Age astrology do. So if we're not doing the "anything goes" approach to modern astrology, I find it helpful to consider the meanings of the different houses.

Traditionally the 12th house was a Big Pile of Hard Luck. More modernly, possibly due to the influence of Hindu astrology, it is a house of mysticism, altruism, seclusion, and the blind spots we each have about ourselves. It is hidden enemies, hospitals, and self-undoing. But also where, if we choose empowering interpretations of the 12th, we can do a lot of good for people less fortunate than ourselves.

The meaning of the MC, in my book, is just a lot more consistent with meanings of the 10th house (vocation, public image) than it is with meanings of the 12th. However, if the ruler of the MC/10th house is in the 12th house, then its meanings will be pulled in, for sure.

I have a different sense of Eleanor Roosevelt's contribution. I wouldn't see either Libra or the 11th as classically associated with social justice issues. To me, the 11th house does not somehow equal the sign of Aquarius. The 11th is the house of friends and associates, as well as one's hopes and wishes for the future. Which fit her, in a slightly different way.

But here is Eleanor Roosevelt's chart:

https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Roosevelt,_Eleanor

Her MC is in Libra, with Venus in the 9th house in Placidus. In whole signs, her MC is in Libra, in the 11th house, with Venus in the 10th.

With most of Roosevelt's planets above the horizon, the sun conjunct her NN, and that big caring Cancer moon, she looks like someone who needed a public life, with concern to care for others, and some pretty advanced thinking (Mercury conjunct Uranus.)

Some high latitude births do have more "normal" houses, but I've not taken the trouble to determine what times of year this happens.

I spent a little time searching high latitude births once. These two charts, both for a Finnish prime minister, illustrate the problem. I note that he was born in February, after the solstice-equinox midpoint. He had his difficulties, but not consistent with core meanings of the 12th house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahti_Karjalainen
 

Attachments

  • ahti_karjalainen Placidus.jpg
    ahti_karjalainen Placidus.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 41
  • ahti_karjalainen whole signs.jpg
    ahti_karjalainen whole signs.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Greetings.

When would one use the equal house system?
What is the benefit, advantage, or rationale for using this system?

Thanks.
An informative thread on Equal House System in Renaissance Astrology
is packed with detailed discussion :smile:
at http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8308
 

Osamenor

Staff member
I spent a little time searching high latitude births once. These two charts, both for a Finnish prime minister, illustrate the problem. I note that he was born in February, after the solstice-equinox midpoint. He had his difficulties, but not consistent with core meanings of the 12th house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahti_Karjalainen

That he ended his career as a disgraced alcoholic sounds very twelfth house to me. Self undoing to the extreme. And Jupiter on his MC: he overindulged.

That he was a politician in the first place is also very twelfth house. Many politicians have busy twelfth houses. It's much more common for an elected leader to have twelfth house planets but an empty tenth house, than the other way around.

In non-whole sign versions of his chart, he has a twelfth house moon, but since it's conjunct his ascendant within 3 degrees, it could be argued to be more first house.

And, since his birth time is on the hour, it's probably rounded. Which could alter the picture a bit. Maybe his moon is actually on the other side of his ascendant, which would make it indisputably first house. Maybe it's farther away and farther into the twelfth.
 

waybread

Well-known member
That he ended his career as a disgraced alcoholic sounds very twelfth house to me. Self undoing to the extreme. And Jupiter on his MC: he overindulged.

That he was a politician in the first place is also very twelfth house. Many politicians have busy twelfth houses. It's much more common for an elected leader to have twelfth house planets but an empty tenth house, than the other way around.

In non-whole sign versions of his chart, he has a twelfth house moon, but since it's conjunct his ascendant within 3 degrees, it could be argued to be more first house.

And, since his birth time is on the hour, it's probably rounded. Which could alter the picture a bit. Maybe his moon is actually on the other side of his ascendant, which would make it indisputably first house. Maybe it's farther away and farther into the twelfth.

Osamenor, sadly alcoholism is a problem in Finland more generally. https://nordic.businessinsider.com/alcoholism-finland-2016-8/
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/profiles/fin.pdf

Alcholism didn't ruin AK's life until later, according to the wikipedia bio. MC in the 12th might well be associated with one's "self undoing" in one's career; but then it wouldn't explain this man's decade's long earlier successes, like becoming the head of state.

A lot of 19th and early 20th century birth times were rounded to the nearest hour, unfortunately. Including the ones for eminent men used in the Gauquelin studies. (Big shockeroo there, when I first looked up French painters, and found this out at the Astro-DataBank.

For sure, the MC is a major point in the horoscope, but generally I associate substance abuse with hard aspects between Neptune and personal planets. No astrological signature works 100% of the time, but then proportional to the population on English-language astrology boards, the MC in the whole signs 12th house isn't that common.

I have seen a number of politicians with 12th house suns. Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (if you accept her 8:03 am rectified birth time,) for example. I think this means that the successful ones identify (sun) with a cause bigger than themselves, or with their constituencies. It's not that they lack big egos, but that they've found a formula that works better than egotism. A loaded 12th-6th house axis has been called a "serve or suffer" lifetime.

Again how many politicians would have a 12th house MC in whole signs? I found another one, former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Palme,_Olof

Anyway, it's an interesting problem.

Another interesting problem is why both Placidus and whole signs are capable of producing good interpretive results.
 
Top