Skyscript home page

The equal divisions
Equal House redefined
Placidian double-cusps and multi-cusps
Misapprehensions of quadrant house division
Campanus and Placidus: whence the MC?
Placidus and Regiomontanus: right, oblique, temporal?
Acknowledgements, notes and sources
About the Author

Global Horoscopes by Michael Wackford

This final pair of essays concludes a 5-part review of horoscopy in the Polar Regions. The first four papers dealt almost exclusively with those regions, venturing to temperate and tropical zones only when we needed to compare and contrast sub-Polar features with phenomena peculiar to latitudes over 66½° North or South.

This paper will now examine Equal houses at these latitudes and then take a broader view as we address issues that, due to their non-Polar nature, were not previously discussed.

The Equal divisions

It is often suggested that any 'problems' associated with circumpolar horoscopy might best be avoided by adopting - or at latitudes 66½° switching to - one or other of the ecliptically equal divisions.

In the first place, the notion that we might switch from one house system to another, for whatever reason, is as unnecessary as it is arbitrary and inconsistent. Moreover, the suggestion implies that Equal houses are never subject to circumpolar anomaly but this is both presumptuous and wrong. Whenever a circumpolar Ascendant is in reverse, the Equal House system presents exactly the same dilemma as that demonstrated by Campanus or Regiomontanus (see The Polar Horoscope). The solution to this problem depends on how we interpret the reasoning behind Equal divisions:

  1. Equal houses are said to commence with the rising degree and then reflect the zodiacal division of the Ecliptic by following on in the order of the signs. If these principles are rigidly applied to a circumpolar horoscope with a reversing Ascendant, all signs and planets that appear above the Arctic horizon will appear below the horizon of the Equal House chart, occupying houses 1 - 6, instead of 7 - 12. A solution to this, as suggested previously in respect of a number of quadrant systems, is to reverse the order of the signs around the edge of the chartwheel.[1]

  2. If instead precedence is accorded to the usual sequence of the signs, we must abandon the rising degree as the 1st house cusp in favour of that which sets in the west. Only then will signs that are above the local horizon remain above the Equal House horizon and in their usual order.
This second solution dissociates Equal houses from the principle of ascension, hence the rotating celestial sphere, leaving a notionally static structure that reflects - correctly -which half of the Ecliptic is above the horizon and which is below. The method would however need redefinition, with any reference to a rising degree excluded - or at least heavily qualified - since custody of the 1st house cusp would alternate between the Ascendant and Descendant.

Equal House redefined

One such redefinition takes not the 1st house cusp as the crux of the system but the Equal House 10th, otherwise known as the Ecliptic Zenith or Nonagesimal. This cusp, which is always the point of the ecliptic highest in the local sky, is the ecliptic point closest to the celestial position of the birthplace ( = the celestial zenith). [2] Any Equal House 10th cusp therefore represents the ecliptic longitude of the birthplace - or even that of the native! Viewed thus, the Nonagesimal would replace the Ascendant as the method's fulcrum, with the houses marked off from the 10th. Any resulting 1st house cusp would continue to coincide with the rising degree or, when the Ascendant is in reverse, the descending degree, but the method would no longer require the principle of Ascension or the rotating celestial sphere.

To use a Descendant as the cusp of the 1st house may seem unacceptable but to reject the idea begs a question of the alternative solution.

If the Ascendant - and therefore the principle of ascension and the rotating celestial sphere - is accorded precedence over the order of the signs, why then do not Equal houses reflect all of that sphere rather than the rising degree alone?

Quite simply, the system would then no longer be Equal House but some manner of quadrant division. What this question then demonstrates is that even a superficially simple astrological idea such as Equal House can present difficulties if its basic principle is not firmly established and the implications thereof properly understood.

We find a similar dilemma more or less present with the other ecliptically equal divisions, though perhaps Sign/house [or "Whole-sign"] is the least compromised; the method has little to do with celestial geometry. In contrast, the Equal House variant that places the Ascendant at the middle of the 1st house might in the Polar Regions acquire 1st and 7th house cusps in parts of the Zodiac that never rise or set. For that method, there is no obvious resolution.

Placidian double-cusps and multi-cusps

Incidences of these phenomena, both of which were touched upon in Polar Meridians, cannot be calculated with conventional Placidian formulae. Such formulations follow iterative procedures designed to arrive at one solution only, rendering them of little use in the Polar Regions when two or more cusps represent the same house.

We can easily reckon the likelihood of a double cusp, where one is provided by a 'normal' house-boundary and the other by the circumpolar meridian belonging to the same house. But it is virtually impossible to envisage the occurrence of multi-cusps, where the Zodiac appears briefly to snake in and out of two adjacent houses. With no means of calculating such cusps, the writer had no demonstrable proof of their existence until they were seen depicted by the graphic display of a programmable calculator. This random graphic demonstration established beyond doubt that multi-cusps were possible but it provided little means with which to study their nature or to establish when, where or how often they occur. Such means finally became available in the Summer of 2003 (see Acknowledgement) and showed at once that the phenomenon is sufficiently complex to require a lengthier, separate study.

In Polar Meridians we saw that when one house is represented by a double-cusp, there will be another house that does not at that moment touch the Ecliptic. Thus when the 11th and 5th each have two cusps, the 9th and 3rd will have none, and vice versa; or where the 12th and 6th are represented by double-cusps, the 8th and 2nd have none, and vice versa. Where the 1st and 7th have two cusps each, there can be no 10th or 4th, which are by far the most likely omissions as they are absent whenever the Ascendant is in reverse.

We should recall that none of these phenomena represent a failure of the method because they are accurate reflections of the circumpolar skies and seasons. Moreover, the house location of any planet is never in dispute within the semi-arc framework. The only real challenge presented by any of these circumpolar features concerns their depiction within a two-dimensional chartwheel.

The modern format, featuring the Ecliptic at the outer wheel, is quite suitable for the majority of circumpolar horoscopes but it is of limited value when the Ascendant is in reverse (i.e. when 1st and 7th houses each have two cusps).

Where there are double- and/or absent cusps, a return to the earlier 'house-based' style would usually suffice. These charts divide the circle into twelve equally spaced houses, rather than the twelve signs. The 4th/10th axis is always at right-angles to the horizontal axis, just as the celestial North/South Meridian is always at right-angles to the local horizon. (This ignores any other geometric angle between the Ascendant and MC, found only in the Ecliptic or in the geographic directions that separate them.) Planets are inserted according to their house position, though accompanied by notes of their Ecliptic degrees, and cuspal degrees are noted at the wheel's outer ring.

This style would better serve horoscopes with double or absent cusps, with the former each noted in the outer ring and the latter simply omitted. But even this format leans toward the assumption that all of the heavens rise directly over 24 hours, so it will eventually misrepresent planetary relationships in a circumpolar chart. It is possible, for example, that two planets found in conjunction in the circumpolar sky can appear in opposition when they are placed in this type of chart.


The mundane sphere is a three-dimensional phenomenon and there are times when it is almost impossible to reproduce it faithfully within two dimensions, especially when the 2D format in question has been developed in accordance with temperate and tropical skies. While a number of formats are possible, the most suitable will be that which best serves any incidences of multi-cusps.

Two misapprehensions of quadrant house division:

1. Campanus and Placidus: whence the MC?

The late Duncan McNaughton - who for many years edited Modern Astrologymagazine under the pen-name Maurice Wemyss - was a lucid proponent of the Campanus method. In appendix 1 of his 5-volume set, The Wheel of Life (or Scientific Astrology), he addresses head-on the issue of house division, commencing with criticism of the semi-arc method:

... the method of Placidus, known as the Semi-arc System, is the method adopted by Raphael in his Tables of Houses and, so far as the writer is aware, followed also by all other astrological publishers at the present day. To quote Alan Leo's definition, "The principle of this system is the trisection of the semi-arc of each degree of the ecliptic. By successively adding one-third S.A. (diurnal) of any degree, to the Sidereal Time of its ascension, said degree is found upon cusp of XII, XI, X, respectively; similarly, by adding one-third S.A. (nocturnal) to Sidereal Time of its descension, said degree is found upon VI, V, IV".

It is remarkable that Wemyss, who in 1952 was elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, should have accepted this oft-repeated but misleadingly narrow description of the method.[3] Leo's definition, like so many others, implies that horoscopic houses exist only in terms of their Ecliptic cusps and degrees, whereby all other celestial space is ignored - yet Wemyss uses this as the basis of his following remarks:

This method is clearly unsound in theory. The M.C. being given, the Ascendant is found according to one method and the intermediate houses according to another.

Such conclusions do not withstand scrutiny and no answer is offered in respect of the question begged by the first words of the second sentence - i.e. how or by what (or whom!) is the MC "given"? The absence of an answer to this question is compounded as Wemyss then argues his case for the Campanus method:

The first thing to notice is that astrologers are, with few exceptions, agreed that the degree of the ecliptic cut by the meridian of the birthplace is to be regarded as the M.C. ... and the degree of the ecliptic cut by the eastern horizon is to be regarded as the ascendant ... If this is admitted it at once establishes a principle on which the other houses may be calculated. ... It so happens that the meridian circle and the horizon circle both divide the Prime Vertical ... into four equal portions of 90 degrees each. ... The planes of the six Campanus circles, therefore, are always at intervals of exactly 30 degrees...[4]

From a purely mathematical point of view these remarks are quite correct, but Wemyss' a priori assumption of the North/South Meridian - and with it the MC - is quite mistaken. This assumption, as common now as it was in Wemyss' day, can no longer rest unchallenged as its very presence continues to undermine the majority of arguments over house division.

The celestial North/South Meridian, which provides the MC, is generated by Earth's rotation. Unlike the horizon, it has no obvious physical existence, though evidence of its location is available to any patient observer of the night skies. It is a concept created by Earth's rotation of the observer's local horizon, the same phenomenon that generates the easterly rising degree. The MC is therefore but one product of the principles that provide all cusps within the Placidian division.

A number of conclusions follow: -

- The answer to the question begged by Wemyss' assumption - 'whence the MC?' - is 'semi-arc principle.' The North/South Meridian and therefore the MC both belong to the semi-arc idea because both are created by it.

- Wemyss' assertion that the semi-arc system derives "the Ascendant according to one method and the intermediate houses according to another" is thus turned on its head. While Placidus obtains all cusps from the rotating celestial sphere, it is the Campanus system that first obtains an MC (and the Ascendant) from that sphere and then its intermediate cusps "from another"; the subsequent division of a trigonometric abstraction, the Prime Vertical.

Without rotation there would be no North and South Poles, no Equator, no compass directions and no lines of geographic longitude [5] - let alone an MC - and the foregoing observations do not apply exclusively to Campanus. All other quadrant methods of domification must first borrow the North/South Meridian from the semi-arc method. Without it, they have no orientation with which to anchor their trigonometry.

Campanus and Regiomontanus incorporate the entire N/S Meridian while systems such as Porphyry, Alcabitius and Koch take only the MC degree from which it derives, but none of these other methods can construct their own North/South Meridian from scratch.

2. Placidus and Regiomontanus: right, oblique, temporal?

We may safely ignore many past objections to the semi-arc system as these were based on the false premise that great circles comprise its intermediate house-boundaries. Two criticisms of the genuine method do however require comment. The most common of these - that Placidus fails above latitude 66½ N/S - is quite mistaken, as we have already seen. The other may also seem at first to constitute reasonable criticism.

Under the semi-arc system a planet with, say, a nocturnal arc of 6 hours and a diurnal arc of 18 hours will spend one hour in each of the houses below the horizon and then three hours in each of those above. Thus having traversed the 3rd, 2nd and 1st houses at a uniform rate of one hour per house, the planet, on crossing the horizon, suddenly takes three hours to ascend through the 12th.

A common objection to this abrupt and apparently inelegant change characterises the absence of any graduation of the amount of time spent in each house as "the artificially equal tri-section of naturally unequal semi-arcs."[6]

In the chapter entitled Various methods of house division, a contributor to Alan Leo's Casting the Horoscope addresses this issue, but through the lens of the Regiomontanus system, pointing out that, under Regiomontanus:

...the semi arcs diurnal and nocturnal are not equally but proportionately divided, which seems much more in accordance with the fitness of things; this proportion is not a simple proportion of their lengths, but is a compound function of the length of the semi-arc and the distance or nearness of the House Circle from the meridian.[7]

These remarks imply that, under Regiomontanus, the length of time spent by a planet or Ecliptic degree in each house is attenuated by Regiomontanian trigonometry so as to correct a perceived shortcoming of the semi-arc system. In the example above the planet would, under this alternative, spend much less than an hour in the 3rd house, nearer an hour in the 2nd and more than an hour in the 1st house. Once over the horizon, the planet would traverse a somewhat diminished 12th house, followed by a longer tenancy of the 11th, before entering the newly extended 10th. (Following culmination, the planet passes down through houses 9 - 4, occupying each for a diminishing amount of time. The westerly houses provide a mirror image of those to the east.)

This effectively re-models Regiomontanus as an alternative semi-arc system but there is much more at issue with this proposition than that offered by Leo's contributor.

The notion proposed above applies only within the ascensional zone of the celestial sphere. This zone is the band of celestial space that can rise and set at any given place. The extent of the ascensional zone is, for any locality, determined by geographic latitude of that place. It is bounded to north and south by two circumpolar celestial zones, the stars of which can never rise or set.

The following drawings depict the celestial sphere at 75N, looking to the East from without:

Celestial sphere at 75N, looking from the East
Note: The so-called co-latitude is the boundary line that divides circumpolar and ascensional zones. Its value, for any geographic latitude, is found by subtracting that latitude from 90 degrees.

The same view, now with Regiomontanus houses:

Celestial sphere at 75N, looking from the East, with Regiomontanus houses
Dashed lines in the circumpolar zones represent the course followed by orthodox Regiomontanus house-boundaries. Here, at 75N, inequalities of size between the various houses are clearly visible.

Solid lines within the circumpolar zones represent the boundaries as they would appear under the suggested revision (see text below).

Solid lines found within the ascensional zone are common to both the orthodox and revised versions of the method.

- As a graduated semi-arc system, the circumpolar procedure for Regiomontanus must be identical to that presented by the semi-arc system. While orthodox Regiomontanus house boundaries are retained in the ascensional zone, they are replaced in the circumpolar zones by semi-arc Meridians, as depicted above. This version of Regiomontanus is thus subject to exactly the same incidences of absent Ecliptic cusps and double-cusps as those found under Placidus in some circumpolar charts.

- Re-modeling Regiomontanus in this manner would remove other objections to the method [that at all locations other than the Equator, its houses are of unequal size; that they become increasingly unequal as geographic latitude increases, with the loss of eight houses at the Poles]. Orthodox Regiomontanus houses are in fact always of equal area, if not shape, within an ascensional zone. It is only within the circumpolar zones that the method's overall spatial discrepancies occur. Since Placidian circumpolar meridians always render circumpolar houses of equal size, their generation within this kinetic version of Regiomontanus would at once render 12 houses that are always equal in terms of celestial space, and at all geographic latitudes. No houses would diminish and none would be lost.

- this version of Regiomontanus is also more correct, astronomically-speaking, in that the method would no longer falsely present a circumpolar degree at lower culmination as though it were an MC.

But it's a specious solution.

Whatever the theoretical attractions of this revision, either of itself or because it appears to 'correct' a perceived shortcoming of the semi-arc system, this proposition is based on the misconception that the heavens are truly spherical. Whether the universe itself may or may not be spherical is not at issue; such starlight as reaches us derives from bodies that vary greatly in their distance from Earth. The visible universe therefore has no particular shape other than that which we perceive or, with this version of Regiomontanus, infer or project.

Most quadrant methods envisage and divide the sky as though it were a static globe, which reflects the idea that the visible heavens constitute a hemispheric dome viewed from within. For the kinetic methods (Placidus and this revision of Regiomontanus), this idea is possible only at the Equator or Poles, where Ptolemy refers to such a globe as the right sphere. At the Equator, the impression of a right sphere is affirmed by the observation that any two stars simultaneously rising, though from different points on the easterly horizon, will also culminate together and thereafter set together.

Moving north or south, but looking back to the Equator, the spherical illusion may be projected only as Ptolemy's oblique sphere (where a heavenly globe might yet be inferred over time but now tilts away from the observer).

Within this sphere, any pair of stars that rise at the same moment will not simultaneously culminate, should they have risen from different points on the horizon. The star with the least declination - that which passes directly overhead at a lower geographic latitude - will always culminate first. The two stars then go on to set in the west at moments even farther removed in time. Both of these temporal discrepancies increase, the higher the geographic latitude - and/or the greater the difference between the points of the horizon where each star first rose into view.

Stars do not traverse the oblique sphere in temporal lockstep. They appear to change relative position, over time, just as the constellations incline at differing angles as they cross the sky. It is precisely these changes that - over time - allow the projection of a tilted globe. There is no tangible proof of a sphere; merely the circumstantial evidence inferred from - and over - the passage of time.

(2008: Ptolemy's text, relevant to the two preceding paragraphs, is now appended below.)

Placidus aside, this kinetic version of Regiomontanus stands alone amongst all other quadrant methods because it can derive its own Meridian from the rotating heavens, unlike the others, which have to borrow theirs from the semi-arc system. With celestial quadrants and the four horoscopic angles thus independently established, the revised method of Regiomontanus and that of Placidus differ only in the way each divides space within the ascensional zone of any oblique sphere.

Placido de Titi and his predecessor, while claiming to follow Ptolemy, certainly adhered to the temporal concept that underlies Planetary Hours. More importantly they followed the course laid out by the idea of a Meridian, which is also a phenomenon that marks the passage of time. The North/South Meridian is produced by the temporal division of countless, separate diurnal and nocturnal arcs. Planets that rise together rarely come to the Meridian together but all culminate at this notional line, and do so in their own time. The semi-arc system follows this model by deriving its intermediate houses from further subdivisions of those arcs.

The result is a conical division of the notional oblique sphere, which reflects that which we perceive on the ground.

Regiomontanus' division of (the ascensional zone of) the oblique sphere is thus a division of inferred space, not time, yet the shape of the space in question is derived from the passage of time, in concert with the observer's place on Earth.

Thus having relied on the passage of time, this revised version of Regiomontanus promptly eschews it, much as the methods of Alcabitius or Porphyry promptly dispense with the North/South Meridian once it has provided an MC (see Polar Houses).

[It is worth noting in this regard that this revision of Regiomontanus and the semi-arc system have more in common than perhaps any other pairing of quadrant methods. Were it not for the measurable discrepancies between temporal and trigonometric divisions of the sphere, the methods of Regiomontanus and Placidus would be absolutely identical, yielding exactly the same Ecliptic cusps. Within the ascensional zone there is only one difference between the two: Placidus maps the moving skies according to their appearance while Regiomontanus imagines that they are wrapped around a perfect sphere]. [8]

Although the Placidus method's "equal trisection of naturally unequal semi-arcs" may at first appear to lack aesthetic appeal, the failure of the only credible alternative - Regiomontanus as a semi-arc system - proves, if nothing else, that objections to Placidian equality are spherical objections incorrectly applied in unspherical or, rather, conical circumstances.

This is really the crux of the matter: Any method of house division that includes the MC but which then divides a Right Sphere is in fact dividing the WRONG sphere. An issue raised in many astrological texts on house division is indeed the question of time versus space, though rarely for the reasons hinted at in most of those books.

The concluding essay in this series will be published next month.


  1 ] The example horoscopes given in The Polar Horoscope may be consulted in this regard. At the moment in question - midnight - the Sun is actually above the horizon, as is the entire Ecliptic hemisphere in which it resides.
Back to text

  2 ] By which geographic longitude and latitude are treated as Right Ascension and declination, respectively.
Back to text

  3 ] In fact, Leo does not describe the method at all. Rather, he lays out a procedure similar to that used, by Raphael, to compile Tables of Houses. Leo thus outlines the mathematical conditions that describe the symptoms of the method - its ecliptic cusps - but fails to discuss its division of the sky. This is clearly inadequate.
Back to text

  4 ] This quotation excludes remarks that compare and contrast Campanus to the method of Regiomontanus. Such omissions do not alter Wemyss' statements regarding Campanus.
Back to text

  5 ] This is of course impossible. Even if Earth always presented the same face to the Sun, such as the Moon presents to the Earth, the Sun might appear stationary but the Earth would continue to rotate, though at a rate of once per year rather than once a day. Removal of the Sun might lengthen our 'day' to one rotation around the Galactic Centre but otherwise the impression would be that of a planet at rest in space. This state of affairs would add a further item to the list of negatives given above - "no Life." Daily rotation is easily taken for granted but, together with our revolution about the Sun, it sustains all visible life on Earth.
Back to text

  6 ] Likewise, this objection might equally be leveled at Gauquelin sectors (where each semi-arc is divided by 9) or indeed at the ancient practice of Planetary Hours (where semi-arcs are divided by 6). Regardless of the number of Hours, sectors or houses, the principle - equal division of each semi-arc - is the same, yet this writer has never seen nor heard of sectors or Hours criticised in the same way.
Back to text

  7 ] He continues: - "These two points are merely referred to, not discussed, for it would lead us too far from our present purpose to enter into a geometric demonstration." The author's omission of such a demonstration is regrettable as its absence surely hindered the arguments advanced. This writer has seen another reference to the geometric property in question, which invokes the "law of sines," but again no further explanation was given.
Back to text

  8 ] Or in the words of Michael Edwards, "Regio is the way we think it ought to be; Placidus is the way it is". This writer would offer the following:- "Regio is what would happen if some great cosmic panel-beater got to work on the Primum Mobile, hammering-out its bent cone into a perfect sphere." Such re-shaping of the sky would shift Placidian house boundaries so that they coincided with their Regiomontanian counterparts.

The following remarks refer to any northerly geographic latitude:

Regiomontanus and semi-arc upper house boundary-lines all commence, together, at the South Point of the local horizon but then diverge slightly as they cross the southerly half of the ascensional zone. The six lines of one method then converge again, with their six counterparts in the other, at the Celestial Equator, where the lines of either method are separated by intervals of exactly 30 degrees. Each pair of lines then diverge yet again as they cross the northerly ascensional zone, before re-converging at the northerly co-latitude, where both sets of houses are always separated by intervals of exactly 60 degrees. (This is true of any and all geographic latitudes, save for the exact Pole and at the Equator.) It is because of these precise 60 degree intervals, at the co-latitude, that it is possible to graft Placidian circumpolar meridians on to the Regiomontanian structure.

Back to text


  Hand, R., (6/1999 & 8/1999), The oldest house system of all: Whole-sign houses, publ. The Mountain Astrologer.

Holden, R. W., (1977), The Elements of House Division, The Camelot Press Ltd., Southampton, UK

Leo, Alan., (1975) Casting the Horoscope, publ. L. N. Fowler & Co., London.

Powell, Robert, (1996), History of the Houses, publ. Astro Communications Service, San Diego, Ca.

Wemyss, Maurice, (reprinted 1985), The Wheel of Life (or Scientific Astrology), vol.1, publ. Ballantrae.

APPENDIX: The following quote - from Ptolemy's Almagest - is a continuation of the passage reproduced at the end of Polar Meridians. Almagest is considered a purely astronomical work but in this section, Ptolemy uses language more closely related to astrology. The term 'meridianal angle' refers to the great circle that produces the MC or IC, whilst 'horizontal angle' means the horizon, which generates the Asc and Desc. Italics used are present in the original text. Again, the word 'parallels' refers to geographic latitudes other than 0 or 90 or, in this passage, nocturnal or diurnal arcs or semi-arcs:

In all these cases, the time occupied in proceeding round from any angle to the same angle again, must be everywhere equal in its duration, for it is marked by one sensible revolution; and the time occupied in passing from either meridianal angle to the angle diametrically opposite, is also everywhere equal; because it is marked by the half of one revolution. So, also, the passage of either horizontal angle to its opposite angle is again effected in the same equal portion of time, wherever the equator may be in the zenith, for it is then likewise marked by the half of an entire revolution; because on such a position of the equator, all the parallels are then divided, as well by the horizon as by the meridian, into two equal parts. But in all other declinations, the time of passage of a semi-circle above the earth is not equal to that of its passage below the earth, except only in the case of the equinocturnal circle itself, which, in an oblique sphere, is the only one divided by the horizon into two equal parts, all others (its parallels) being bisected into dissimilar and unequal arcs. It follows, accordingly, that the time contained in the space between rising or setting, and either meridian, must be equal to the time between the same meridian and rising and setting; because the meridian divides equally such portions of the parallels as are above or under the earth. But in proceeding in an oblique sphere, from rising to setting to either meridian, the time occupied must be unequal; and in a right sphere, equal, because the entire portions above the earth are, in a right sphere only, equal to those below the earth; whence, for instance, in a right sphere, whatever stars may be together on the meridian must also all rise and set together, until their progress becomes perceptible by the poles of the zodiac; while, on the other hand, in an oblique sphere, whatever stars may be together on the meridian can neither all rise together nor set together; for the more southern stars must always rise later than than those which are more northern, and set earlier." ("On this side of equator," adds Ashmand. ie - in the northern hemisphere - mw.)


Michael Wackford has studied astrology since 1976. For 11 years he studied and argued with the late Neil Gillings, a little known yet well-respected technical astrologer who was consulted by Ingrid Lind, Charles E. O. Carter, Roy Firebrace and others. The author has contributed articles to the AA Journal and the Traditional Astrologer and has also advised other astrologers.

© Michael Wackford. Published online April 2008. This article was published in Correlation 23 (1) 2005; pp.45-63.

More on Angles & Houses