16
In line with your example regarding the Moon symbolizing women in general, I would think that Venus could then also represent different women in the chart, i.e. in 7th the wife, in 4th the mother etc?
There are a lot of overlaps in astrology and the Moon/Venus/woman thing is one of them. To me at least Venus was more about relationships and therefore requiring two people (at least).

In book 13 (page 92) he associates Venus with "the wife and mother by day. Sisters daughters, lovers, concubines." So Venus has an analogy with those women, but it is the house position, and/or rulership (and to a lesser extent aspect) that tells us which, if any of those people are represented in a particular chart. Venus in the 5th is your daughters not your mother. Venus in the 10th is your mother, not your wife, and so on.

17
Tom: in The Cabal of the 12 Houses, Morin says the association of the mother with the 10th does not correspond to the "the ancient tradition", which was "perverted by Ptolemy and his successors", and that the mother should be taken from the 4th. So maybe Venus in 10th would be honours or power bestowed by a woman? At any rate, I think Venus would have to be in the 4th for it to clearly represent the mother by virtue of its placement, for Morin.
Graham

18
I didn't check with anything before I wrote what I did , and just wrote what popped in my head about the 10th and the mother. I didn't recall that from Cabal. The point is still the same.

20
I keep starting the promised review and then I keep getting sent all over the place for work. Then I re-read something in it or elsewhere that causes me to rethink things a bit. So much for excuses. However I came across something that is relevant to the above discussion.

Graham noted:

What surprised me most was her presentation of "acquired analogy by sign" (pp. 15-19). She says "Venus is in the sign of Virgo and therefore acquires analogy with the sixth house by sign",
As I said somewhere above, this is true and I dismissed it as the author's quirk. But then I re-read (after a couple of years lapse) an article in Astro Dienst by one Penny Seator titled The Down-to-Earth Sky:
An Introduction to Morin's Method of Determination


http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_morin_e.htm

Ms Seator does the same thing. I believe, which means, I'm guessing, that Ms Seator was taught by Robert Corre. Patti Tobin Brittain, the author of the book under consideration, was taught by a gentleman named Gerhard Houwing. To my knowledge the two men never met, and I don't think Houwing was taught by Corre's teacher, Zoltan Mason. So where is the common link?

Seator and Brittain seem to limit themselves to Book 21 of AG. and so far, I haven't found any reference to this in Book 21, but I did find this:

"Some authors hold an opinion that the signs carry the same signification in order that the houses of heaven do, and Aries should signify life; Taurus estate: Gemini brethren and short journeys, you know the rest. Truly my own opinion is many authors invented whimsies, and when they had done, set them down to posterity for truth; who taking them up without trial, clothed tradition in plush and left poor reason to go in rags. An author said so, ergo it is true right or wrong. " - Nicholas Culpeper Judgment of Disease Chap X, IV (1655).
Culpeper's opinion of this matter is not relevant to the discussion. The point here is that the idea of signs and houses have the same significations isn't that new. Furthermore, it was brought to my attention that Valens offered a similar opinion. Therefore, this usage of Morin's theory of determinations with the sign = house or something similar is not a modern concept, whether any of his contemporary students know it or not. There is something in the tradition to support the idea. Whether it works or not is a different matter

21
I've read through Morin's books on Houses, signs and determinations (skimmed through them is more accurate), and can't find any reference to the "acquired analogy by sign." Unless someone can show me this in any of his writings, I'm going to suggest this is a modern add on.

Brittain wrote that her teacher first came across Morin in a German edition of his work. The odds are that was Swickeart's "Cornerstones of Astrology, which was not a literal translation but included a lot of the authors' (there were two I can't recall the name of the other) ideas. I can't account for Seator doing the same thing either, unless it came to her via Corre via Zoltan Mason (via Cornerstones?)

This isn't to say that it doesn't work - only that I can't find it in Morin's work even by deducing it from writings on similar subjects. Her does state in various places that the planets get their natures from the signs they rule. He also says the houses don't do anything actively. If that's the case I can't see how he would believe that the sign drags along the house's meaning wherever he goes.

22
Hi Tom,

For the record, I bought and (more or less) read the book that is the topic of this thread. It's very informative. Thanks for suggesting it!

To my frustration, I can't find all the volumes of "Die Bausteine der Astrologie" by Friedrich Schwickert ("Sindbad") and Adolf Weiss right now, :-? so I can't try to find out whether these authors are in fact suggesting the so-called Natural Houses. Their series of books is a paraphrase and elaboration on Morin. Certainly it was by these books that early followers of Morin in the German speaking countries generally would become acquainted with him first.

I recall once hearing that Morin refers to the 4th, 8th, and 12th house as affiliated with the Water element somewhere, but I don't have any source on this. Certainly this concept would not seem incompatible with Morin's overall analogical approach to astrology.
Furthermore, it was brought to my attention that Valens offered a similar opinion.
I would be interested in having a reference for this, if possible, Tom.

23
I think I misspoke about Valens. I got from a FB post, but upon re-reading what the author said it is pretty clear that I misunderstood. He said that if you want to see Aries = 1st House etc in Valens you can see it. In other words he thinks the idea may have come from Valens but that he didn't explicitly state it. I know very little about Valens and can't say whether or not that's true. There was no specific reference. But clearly Culpeper heard it someplace.

Morin, to my knowledge does not refer to houses 4, 8, and 12 as "water houses" or the water triplicity either in Book 17 of Astrologia Gallica, or in the Cabal of the Twelve Houses Astrological. He divides the houses into four groups of three. The groups, in general represent birth, vigor, decline and death. So the first triplicity is made up of houses 1, 5, and (birth) the second triplicity is 10, 6, and 2 and it represents vigor. The third triplicity is made up of houses 7, 3, and 11 and represents decline. The fourth group consists of houses 4, 12, and 8 and represents death. I cannot find a reference to fire earth, air, and water anywhere.

24
Tom wrote:
I think I misspoke about Valens. I got from a FB post, but upon re-reading what the author said it is pretty clear that I misunderstood. He said that if you want to see Aries = 1st House etc in Valens you can see it. In other words he thinks the idea may have come from Valens but that he didn't explicitly state it. I know very little about Valens and can't say whether or not that's true. There was no specific reference.
Tom,

I would appreciate a link to or copy of the post, nevertheless, if possible. :wink:
But clearly Culpeper heard it someplace.
We discussed this topic recently on other threads and found that the Natural Houses were in quite common use by the time of the Renaissance and can indeed be traced back to Lilly (who regards the signs as co-significators of the houses) and Al Kindi. See in particular
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8270

As to the rest of your post: Thanks, I may have been misinformed then regarding Morin mentioning "Water houses". Albeit it goes without saying that various kinds of triplicities have been assigned to the houses since times immemorial, the most popular one being the division into Angular, Succedent, and Cadent.

25
He divides the houses into four groups of three. The groups, in general represent birth, vigor, decline and death. So the first triplicity is made up of houses 1, 5, and (birth) the second triplicity is 10, 6, and 2 and it represents vigor. The third triplicity is made up of houses 7, 3, and 11 and represents decline. The fourth group consists of houses 4, 12, and 8 and represents death. I cannot find a reference to fire earth, air, and water anywhere.
This reminded me of a dutch astrological book I studied in my first years of (trying and) teaching astrology, way back in the '80ies.
"Psychologische Astrologie" by Th. J. J. Ram, printed by Couvreur, The Hague (I think the 1st edition dates from 1935).
Herein the author studies charts using what he calls (I translate from the dutch):

- Quality cycle (connections between houses 1-5-9, 2-6-10 and 1, 3-7-11 and 1, 4-8-12 and 1)

- Quantity cycle:
a) the pioneer (connections between 1-2-3-4)
b) the sustainer (connections between houses 5-6-7-8)
c) the divulger (he who spreads/shares) (connections between 9-10-11-12)

- Creating cycle:
a) the Politician (conn. between 1-4-7-10)
b) the Artist (connections between 2-5-8-11)
c) the Thinker (connections between 3-6-9-12)

The "quality-cycle" resonates with what Tom wrote (quoted). But then again, early 20th century, psychological approach...?
I don't know if this work has been translated into english; at yonder times I thought it quite cumbersome to look for all these connections, put them into schemes, and "read" them... Maybe I should look it up in detail again...

I 've searched the index, intro and last pages, but nowhere I find a reference to Older Masters like Morin. Pity!
Herman

http://www.hervaro.be

26
tom,

could it be that the association of triplicities with the signs and elements is an obvious conclusion one might take from morin's view on these 'triplicities' that are in play with houses 1,5,9 and etc? it doesn't seem like much of a stretch as this is the same synergy that exist in the sign relationships that morin seems to be drawing in the house relationships, even if he doesn't mention the elements..

27
could it be that the association of triplicities with the signs and elements is an obvious conclusion one might take from morin's view on these 'triplicities' that are in play with houses 1,5,9 and etc?
I don't think so for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is that he never comes close to saying that, and the second there are a couple of places where he seems to rule it out. I am travelling and don't have the texts with me, but I do recall where he said something like this: the houses are not active. They inform us where in the areas of life that the activity will occur. If we can bring 6th house activity to the 8th house location by virtue of Virgo being in the 8th, that statement makes no sense.