skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Equal House System in Renaissance Astrology?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael Sternabach wrote:
Quote:
Could you give me the references for Noonan, Dykes, and Brennan, please?


Sorry Michael I missed your question further back in this thread.

George C. Noonan supported the idea Ptolemy was using a variant of equal houses in his book Classical Scientific Astrology. This was one of the first books to discuss traditional astrology to a popular audience.

Benjamin Dykes spends a considerable amount of space at the beginning of his book Introductions to Traditional Astrology discussing early house systems. Dykes only makes a passing comment that he considers it likely Ptolemy was using a variant of equal for length of life calculation at least. He also briefly discusses Dorotheus of Sidon, and Nechepso and Petosiris. The Octopos or 8 sector system is also discused.

Dykes is evidently a follower of Robert Schmidt's theory that quadrant systems were originally developed as planetary strength indicators rather than discrete house systems. He therefore also suggests that the Porphyry system, Octopos system and the Dorotheus idea of extending the influence of the ASC 30 degrees were all variant methods of assessing planetary strength. Dykes seems to be seeking to expand the scope of Robert Schmidt's theory on Porphyry houses being strength indicators to include Dorotheus and the 8 sector Octopos.

Robert Schmidt's theory first appeared in his Introduction to a translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos Part III in 1996. This was part of the Project Hindsight publications. This section was headed: House Division, Planetary Strength, and Cusps in Hellenistic Astrology

You can still read the piece online on Curtis Manwaring's website:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses/schmidt-houses.html

Schmidt's theory has become very influential and most of the American astrologers who worked or studied with Schmidt such as Robert Hand, Demetra George, Joseph Crane , Curtis Manwaring and Chris Brennan all adopted his theory.

However, here on Skyscript Deborah Houlding has made some very strong arguments on the traditional forum in the last few years which seriously question this whole theory. She has offered textual references that raise questions on whether early astrologers may have instead saw these techniques as fully viable house systems not just tools to assess planetary strength. It has to be acknowledged Schmidt's theory was proposed at a very early stage of rediscovery of hellenistic astrology.

Getting back to Ptolemy , Chris Brennan has argued Ptolemy was actually using whole sign houses in his Tetrabiblos. His argument relies heavily on Robert Schmidt's translation of the Tetrabiblos into English and subtle lingustic differences in the way Schmidt translates the Greek text in contrast to his predecessors such as F.E. Robbins.

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/2011/12/08/did-ptolemy-use-whole-sign-houses/

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1215
Location: Delhi

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Brennan's article, I found this phrase interesting:

Quote:
What we are left with then is a very concise text that sometimes takes certain concepts for granted. House division may be one of them.


The lack of definition in a concise text could also be due to multiplicity of them and the writer implies- use whichever and what I wrote still applies



Quote:
while at the same time he has a tendency to not employ houses or Lots for topical purposes,

Because there were so many variants that they did not matter ?

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 471
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Quote:
George C. Noonan supported the idea Ptolemy was using a variant of equal houses in his book Classical Scientific Astrology. This was one of the first books to discuss traditional astrology to a popular audience.


Interesting hint, Mark. Just by taking a look at Amazon's text sample it appears that the book may be worth purchasing for me. Even though I'm already quite familiar with the more basic aspects of traditional astrology, I get the impression that Noonan has some remarkable thoughts on the topic to share.

Quote:
Benjamin Dykes spends a considerable amount of space at the beginning of his book Introductions to Traditional Astrology discussing early house systems. Dykes only makes a passing comment that he considers it likely Ptolemy was using a variant of equal for length of life calculation at least. He also briefly discusses Dorotheus of Sidon, and Nechepso and Petosiris. The Octopos or 8 sector system is also discused.


This made me wonder, is there any evidence suggesting that Dorotheus extended this 30° "orb" of the ASC (in which direction, BTW?) to a complete house system? And what's the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?

Quote:
Dykes is evidently a follower of Robert Schmidt's theory that quadrant systems were originally developed as planetary strength indicators rather than discrete house systems. He therefore also suggests that the Porphyry system, Octopos system and the Dorotheus idea of extending the influence of the ASC 30 degrees were all variant methods of assessing planetary strength. Dykes seems to be seeking to expand the scope of Robert Schmidt's theory on Porphyry houses being strength indicators to include Dorotheus and the 8 sector Octopos.

Robert Schmidt's theory first appeared in his Introduction to a translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos Part III in 1996. This was part of the Project Hindsight publications. This section was headed: House Division, Planetary Strength, and Cusps in Hellenistic Astrology

You can still read the piece online on Curtis Manwaring's website:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/houses/schmidt-houses.html


Thanks for the link. I actually have the whole Project Hindsight series somewhere, but since moving places, I haven't been able to figure out in which one of so many boxes the booklets are hiding! Confused

Quote:
Schmidt's theory has become very influential and most of the American astrologers who worked or studied with Schmidt such as Robert Hand, Demetra George, Joseph Crane , Curtis Manwaring and Chris Brennan all adopted his theory.

However, here on Skyscript Deborah Houlding has made some very strong arguments on the traditional forum in the last few years which seriously question this whole theory. She has offered textual references that raise questions on whether early astrologers may have instead saw these techniques as fully viable house systems not just tools to assess planetary strength. It has to be acknowledged Schmidt's theory was proposed at a very early stage of rediscovery of hellenistic astrology.


As much as I appreciate Robert's great achievements in making the ancient texts more accessible (I had a short but gratifying exchange with Ellen Black back in the 90s), I also enjoy Deb's efforts to demonstrate that we should be careful not to draw hasty conclusion especially in regard to the intricate topic of the houses.

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Martin Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
Interesting hint, Mark. Just by taking a look at Amazon's text sample it appears that the book may be worth purchasing for me. Even though I'm already quite familiar with the more basic aspects of traditional astrology, I get the impression that Noonan has some remarkable thoughts on the topic to share.


I dont want to mislead you Michael. I am not sure the book is all that extraordinary. But it was remarkable in a time when traditional astrology was an eccentricity. Personally, I think Noonan's book on Fixed Stars and Judicial astrology is his book I would prefer to have now.

Martin Sternbacjh wrote:
Quote:
This made me wonder, is there any evidence suggesting that Dorotheus extended this 30° "orb" of the ASC (in which direction, BTW?) to a complete house system? And what's the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?


I think to answer that question would require a very careful study of the Carmen Astrologicum. I cannot find my Dykes book just now so cannot find if he cites a reference in the Carmen Astrologicum. I just scanned my translation of the the Carmen Astrologicum by David Pingree but couldn't find the section Dykes was referring to. As I recall Dykes suggest's Dorotheus indicates the influence of the ASC could be extended 30° in zodiacal order. So just like equal houses. I thought that might please you! However, the book does have quite a lot of interpolations from Perso-Arabic astrology (the references to God are a clue!) so we need to tread carefully.

Ben Dykes doesn't suggest this could be the basis of equal houses. He was really interested in discussing it as an alternative tradition of how to assess planetary strength that extended beyond the Whole Sign ASC sign. As I suggested Dykes (in that book at least) is aligned to Schmidt's theory that anything non-whole sign in ancient astrology must be a planetary strength technique. He ends up making the quite radical suggestion that people explore the 8 sector Octopos of Nechepso as a planetary strength indicator to supplement whole sign houses.

However, I think many people will be thinking along the lines you have indicated. As I suggested in my previous post in this thread if this idea of Dorotheus isn't an explicit reference to equal houses it certainly seems like an astrological predecessor of it. Now that Deb Houlding has demonstrated Valens was utilising equal houses (amongst others) this is an intriguing area for further research.

Martin Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
As much as I appreciate Robert's great achievements in making the ancient texts more accessible (I had a short but gratifying exchange with Ellen Black back in the 90s), I also enjoy Deb's efforts to demonstrate that we should be careful not to draw hasty conclusion especially in regard to the intricate topic of the houses.


Yes I think we all enjoy Deb's contribution here! I think you have summed up her position perfectly.

Martin Sternbach wrote:
Quote:
What is the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?


I think that is too complicated a question to answer in this context. It really deserves a separate thread. In particular the whole Octopos system and whether it was a house system or not. I think there have been a few threads on this already actually! I will see if I can find a link for you.

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Sternbach



Joined: 01 Mar 2014
Posts: 471
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2014 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
Quote:
This made me wonder, is there any evidence suggesting that Dorotheus extended this 30° "orb" of the ASC (in which direction, BTW?) to a complete house system? And what's the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?


Mark replied:

Quote:
I think to answer that question would require a very careful study of the Carmen Astrologicum. I cannot find my Dykes book just now so cannot find if he cites a reference in the Carmen Astrologicum. I just scanned my translation of the the Carmen Astrologicum by David Pingree but couldn't find the section Dykes was referring to. As I recall Dykes suggest's Dorotheus indicates the influence of the ASC could be extended 30° in zodiacal order. So just like equal houses. I thought that might please you! However, the book does have quite a lot of interpolations from Perso-Arabic astrology (the references to God are a clue!) so we need to tread carefully.


This pleases me indeed! I think I should get a copy of Ben Dykes' Introductions to Traditional Astrology then for the references to Dorotheus.

Michael wrote:
Quote:
What is the current opinion on Nechepso's and Petosiris' use of houses?


Mark replied:
Quote:
I think that is too complicated a question to answer in this context. It really deserves a separate thread. In particular the whole Octopos system and whether it was a house system or not. I think there have been a few threads on this already actually! I will see if I can find a link for you.


Thanks Mark, looking forward to the links. Your assistance is much appreciated.

Michael
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fluffmeister



Joined: 13 Apr 2018
Posts: 1
Location: Leicester

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

astroart wrote:
The English astrologer Roger of Hereford (circa 1170 A.D.) in his book Liber de Astronomice iudicandi used whole- sign house system. More info:


Nicholas Whyte, Roger of Hereford�s Liber de Astronomice iudicandi:A Twelfth-Century Astrologer�s Manual,M.Phil Dissertation, 1991, p.18


It's true that Whyte claimed he used a whole-sign house system, but I think he was mistaken.

I'm doing my PhD on Roger of Hereford's "Liber de arte astronomice iudicandi", and the sample horoscope he uses later in the text has house cusps drawn up in several manuscripts, and they clearly all use Alcabitius houses. He does use the usual trick of nudging a planet forwards into the next house if it's close to a cusp, and this may be why Whyte assumed whole signs.

Whyte also maintains that he used a sidereal system, but again the horoscope example uses tropical - but Roger's astrolabe was almost certainly calibrated for sidereal, and he describes both methods. In fact, Roger was using tropical (unsurprisingly) for his delineations, but having to convert from sidereal values when using an astrolabe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3458
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
He does use the usual trick of nudging a planet forwards into the next house if it's close to a cusp, and this may be why Whyte assumed whole signs.


I can't speak for Hereford, but I do think the idea that the so-called "five-degree rule" means the planet within five degrees of a sign is treated as though it is in the next house is a mistake. Morin did something like that, but more on him below. The idea was that a house began, not at the cusp, but 5 degrees before the cusp and the cusp was the most sensitive point in the house. So if the 2nd house cusp is 15 Leo and Jupiter is at 12 Leo, Jupiter is in the 2nd house because the second house begins at 10 Leo. If subsequent researchers mistook that for usage of whole sign houses, they were likely mistaken. As I said I can't be certain of that.

This idea does cause some confusion. Morin misstated it, but acknowledged that a planet close to a cusp exerted influence in the next house because of its orb of influence. In his mind the cusp was the beginning of the house - end of story. So in the above example, Jupiter would be in the first house but exerting influence in the 2nd.

Whole sign houses, regardless of whether they are the oldest system or not, solves all these problems and more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1452

Posted: Mon May 28, 2018 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
The idea was that a house began, not at the cusp, but 5 degrees before the cusp


I would argue that actually the house begins where we might imagine the house ends - that is, after all, where planets enter them via primary motion. In this way of thinking, as the planet enters the house via primary motion it has nothing of that house yet associated with it. As it moves through it and makes its way to the cusp, the power or association of the house is built up so the planet becomes pregnant with its association, as it touches the cusp, it has now spent as long as it can in that house and so is brimming with association with that house. And then it enters the preceding house and for a few degrees is still brimming with the power of the previous house.

Quote:

Whole sign houses, regardless of whether they are the oldest system or not, solves all these problems and more.


In what sense is this a problem and what are the other problems that whole signs solve?
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2866
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Mon May 28, 2018 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi paul,

i know you didn't ask me, but i would like to comment..

i like how you have stated everything in your last post here.

i think that so much of the technical side of astrology is about math, so it is understandable that a particular math equation is used to arrive at the various house systems that an astrologer has to chose from.. ultimately the astrologer chooses a system that makes the most amount of sense to them based on their own observations.

now, i personally think there is a lot to be said for whole sign houses in this regard - the planet in the same sign as the ascendant resonates within that sign.. i say this regardless of whether it is in the 12th or the 1st.. obviously some consideration must be given to just how close or far away it is from the ascendant degree too, but it becomes very subjective at this point and no longer a purely mathematical construct that one falls back on...

however, i note in the past when i was first learning astrology in the 70's - everything was very black and white - ie - it is either in this 12th house box, or in the 1st house box - this is the houses as boxes idea i harp about periodically on skycript... it never made sense to me and i thus gravitated towards equal houses which i will quickly define as what was very much like how i understand whole sign houses of today... again - for those folks coming from the thinking of houses as boxes- they did the same thing with equal houses too, while downplaying the significance of the sign on the cusp... i recall being given the example of the house cusp being like the crest of a wave... it builds up and falls off in relation to the crest, but to think in terms of static boxes is the antithesis of how i understand houses!

obviously this is where the re introduction of whole sign houses has given new light onto just how one views 'houses'.. they are not so much 'boxes' where planets are either in, or not in, but they are some type of vibration centered on the cusp!!!

the 5 degree rule is a simplification of this for a novice who has to start somewhere.. ultimately anyone doing astrology must come to their own subjective conclusions on just how much one weighs something over something else.. it is at this point that one moves away from the '''mathematics'' of astrology and into the ''subjectivity'' of astrology... the objecti-fists will of course find this unacceptable and continue to emphasize the limits of math at the cost of letting any subjective considerations colour their thinking.. this is how i frame the dilemma over the topic of houses... perhaps places as opposed to houses would be a better word to have used in astrology, but that might have presented other problems too, that i am not able to see at the moment..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3458
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In what sense is this a problem and what are the other problems that whole signs solve?

Whole sign houses eliminate the "debate" over which house cusps are correct. They eliminate intercepted signs, and they eliminate distorted houses at extreme latitudes. Other problems are if late degrees are on a cusp, which planet is the true ruler, the ruler of the sign on the cusp, or the ruler of the bulk of the house?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3458
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would argue that actually the house begins where we might imagine the house ends - that is, after all, where planets enter them via primary motion.


Sort of, if we direct to house cusps. Not all astrologers did that. Progressions and the modern solar arc directions go the other way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1452

Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

james_m wrote:
hi paul,

i know you didn't ask me, but i would like to comment..


You should always comment James Smile


i like how you have stated everything in your last post here.

Quote:

now, i personally think there is a lot to be said for whole sign houses in this regard - the planet in the same sign as the ascendant resonates within that sign.. i say this regardless of whether it is in the 12th or the 1st.. obviously some consideration must be given to just how close or far away it is from the ascendant degree too, but it becomes very subjective at this point and no longer a purely mathematical construct that one falls back on...


My personal belief, and I realise I'm in the minority here, is that this whole sign issue is actually all very simple and common sense - there was a tradition of seeing planets in houses by sign as well as by degree, the exact same logic is seen for aspects. Libra and Gemini are trine by sign but planets in them may not be trine by aspect etc. I personally think that's all it is and the idea of "original house system" and so on just misses that. But I'm not trying to open that can of worms here, but what you say above I would certainly agree with, in that any 12th house planet (by non WSH) would surely resonate with the ascendant precisely because it's in a whole sign conjunction with the ascendant itself.

Quote:
but to think in terms of static boxes is the antithesis of how i understand houses!


Me too to be honest, I personally use two house systems at pretty much the same time and I guess I may even use three if I include whole sign houses, though my use of it is a bit more abstract in terms of thinking like a whole sign conjunction to an equal house cusp. So I definitely don't see the black and white box approach either. The reality is that all the house systems divide up the mundane sphere in some manner and that division is an equal division into 12ths and is inherently meaningful in its own right. So I don't really buy into ideas of better house systems etc. either.

Quote:
the 5 degree rule is a simplification of this for a novice who has to start somewhere.. ultimately anyone doing astrology must come to their own subjective conclusions on just how much one weighs something over something else..


It's so refreshing to see someone articulate this so well, I think the exact same way as you here James. The five degree rule is fine, but it may often be 6 for me if I think it's meaningful. I use the so called five degree rule more abstractly by saying that planet preceding the cusp of a house by a 'few' degrees may be meaningful to that proceeding house. We don't have to put a number on it.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1452

Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom wrote:
Whole sign houses eliminate the "debate" over which house cusps are correct.


Not really though, instead, just like every other house system, it has a particular cusp and that's that. The idea of correctness doesn't come into it and we don't have any set of tools other than experience and common sense to tell us otherwise. Equal house people may say the same, it eliminates the debate on which cusps are correct, clearly the answer is equal house ones. Whole sign may actually widen and confuse the issue of cusps more so perhaps than any other house system in that some people (for example Schmidt) imagine that whole signs do not have cusps of power at all, but some other house system, such as equal, is required for a power based cusp. That is the opposite of simple and eliminating the debate if you take that approach, that instead is widening the possibilities of what the cusp is and also what cusps mean.



Quote:
They eliminate intercepted signs


Sure, just like equal, but then with all of these kinds of things there will be people who say this isn't a problem to begin with, and indeed offers an opportunity to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the chart.

Quote:
and they eliminate distorted houses at extreme latitudes


As do equal, but both ignore the bigger elephant in the room, which is that the problem of houses at extreme latitudes isn't about their size but their behaviour. A succedent house at extreme latitudes won't, for example, move to the angle, but could become cadent, and cadent places can move to angularity. We always ignore these issues when talking about houses at extreme latitudes, but really that's the bigger issue here and all the houses suffer from it.
_________________
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3458
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Not really though, instead, just like every other house system, it has a particular cusp and that's that.


No because there are no cusps in Whole Sign Houses. In fact Robert Hand pointed out that it might be incorrect to call Whole Signs a house system at all.

The word "cusp" was first used by astrologers in the middle ages. The word comes from a Latin word "cuspis," which is the point of a knife, sword, or spear. It is the point where the energy is most concentrated. The etymology of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with "beginnings," yet that is the debate, "where does the house begin?" The sign IS the house and the sensitive point business doesn't come up.

The Greeks possibly used some combination of whole signs and a quadrant system not to determine where the house began but only to determine the sensitive point within a sign. That all changed over the years.

As for your other observations, I never said equal house don't solve the same issues such as intercepted signs. But they bring about other problems. For example Donald Trump's chart has an ASC of 29 Leo 59, an extreme example I admit. That means, using equal houses, that nearly the entire house is occupied by a sign other than the one on the cusp. That's just weird. But using Trump'schart with whole sign houses, the most sensitive point is near the end of the sign. But Leo is his ASC, and Leo rules his first house not a combination of Leo and Mercury.

I don't believe there is one true house system that works perfectly 100% of the time. I've seen charts where quadrant systems show things whole signs will not. The reverse is also true. But to me, whole signs just make more sense overall. I admit they aren't perfect.

I think the reason that whole signs are not more widely adopted is habit. If we're been using say Placidus, and look at whole signs and realize one or more planets "move" to the next "house" it's a turnoff. It means our previous delineations are wrong- much too uncomfortable for most. In my own chart every planet except Mercury (including the outers) moves to the next house. My 11th house Moon becomes a 12th house Moon, but once I get honest with myself, I realize that makes more sense in my life. On the other hand, my 7th house Sun becomes an 8th house Sun - a potential premature death. Well I'm 70 - "premature" is looking less and less likely.

Whole signs are neat and orderly - "Virgoesque" if you will. Debates over whether it is better to use time, or the equator, or the ecliptic to divide the quadrants can never be resolved. A pox on them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
james_m



Joined: 05 Dec 2011
Posts: 2866
Location: vancouver island

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi paul,

thanks for your comments and generousity!

i like what tom has said in his latest post about no house cusps in whole signs... i guess this is why i tend to favour the equal house concept as it gives emphasis to the degree on the ascendant, even if one uses whole signs, one can't get away from the significance of the rising degree.. well, that is how i see it and i think that rising degree carries over into the different signs too, but i might be in a minority thinking this way..

but to swing my ideas back to the question of the thread - equal houses in renaissance astrology? - i think it is an open question how astrologers of the past were working with these ideas... one sees the same thing happening today and no one has a fool proof system that i have seen for a particular approach to houses.. somehow the angles have to be integrated with the rest of the chart.. the problem is the 2 angles - ascendant axis and midheaven axis, often don't work out easily in the division of the houses.. a simple way is to just work with one more then the other - ascendant is what equal house does, but one could just as easily base the houses off the midheaven too and i forget what that approach is called right now..

tom,

it is interesting what you say about why you think whole signs aren't used more often - it would confirm astrologers perception that the house systems they used in the past were in fact wrong!! i think there is some truth to what you say here..

as for your comments on last degrees of a sign and how it works out with equal houses - i hear what you are saying, but then that ignores the fact that an appreciation of degree distance is of any relevance in determining where a planet is.. my problem with lumping all planets that are in one sign as being in one area of the chart is it is not really accurate... there are 30 degrees to a sign... to think that the first few degrees share the same strength to a last degree rising sign is not how i view houses... i don't know that whole sign house people think this way.. but, i think degree differentials and distance in terms of degrees from an angle are important - whether it is the ascendant or midheaven axis..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 3 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated