Hi Gaer,

You have my sympathy. I was looking at a chart for Reykjavik in Iceland recently and I had the same issue as you. Reykjav?k has a latitude of 64? 8' North. From a pragmatic perspective I am not happy with the distorted house sizes any quadrant system produces at such high latitudes.

As Deb pointed out we can hardly blame the early astrologers for such unforseen issues regarding polar regions.

In any case, here in Scotland the quadrant systems such as Placidus and Koch are probably still the most popular by far amongst astrologers. Moreover, I understand many Scandanavian astrologers living a lot further north still favour quadrant systems so its a matter of judgement.

After initially being taught to use the equal house system and then gravitating to Placidus houses for many years I am beginning to experiment with whole sign houses for natal charts. I am finding the process quite rewarding.

However, its interesting that both Ptolemy and Valens seem to have used quadrant systems to assess planetary strength. In terms of natal work I think I would always want to compare a whole sign chart with a quadrant chart too. I am begiining to see how both kinds of charts can relate meaningful information in natal delineation. The only exception might be the extremely high latitude cases we have discussed.

The issue for me is what I use for electional and horary charts? As planetary strength is such a key issue in such charts I cannot imagine doing these with a whole sign approach at present. Not least as some hellenistic authorities claim horary is post-classical development.

Maybe, this just underlines the point that the issue of house systems has never been 'one size fits all'.

Hi Mark,

I believe I forgot to check "notify", so I had no idea you had answered. I only found my original post by doing a search for my own name.

MarkC wrote: You have my sympathy. I was looking at a chart for Reykjavik in Iceland recently and I had the same issue as you. Reykjav?k has a latitude of 64? 8' North. From a pragmatic perspective I am not happy with the distorted house sizes any quadrant system produces at such high latitudes.

Exactly!

As Deb pointed out we can hardly blame the early astrologers for such unforseen issues regarding polar regions.

Of course not, and I think it's equally true that our qudrant systems were not made for extremly high (or low) latitudes, in general.

In any case, here in Scotland the quadrant systems such as Placidus and Koch are probably still the most popular by far amongst astrologers. Moreover, I understand many Scandanavian astrologers living a lot further north still favour quadrant systems so its a matter of judgement.

Even at the latitude of Glasgow, it already gets rather nasty. With an AC of 0 degrees Cancer, almost two signs fit in the 12th house in Placidus and Capricorn contains two houses. This is with Placidus.

Koch simply changes one distortion to another, now with an absolutely huge 10th and 4th houses.

Looking at the whole thing with a bit of humor, but also pointing out what can happen, any one born far to the north with 0 Cancer on the AC and with Sun in late Taurus, for example, is almost twice as likely to end up with a whole mess of planets in the 12th house, since Mercury and Venus can't get far enough away from the Sun to get out of that house!

After initially being taught to use the equal house system and then gravitating to Placidus houses for many years I am beginning to experiment with whole sign houses for natal charts. I am finding the process quite rewarding.

It's certainly an interesting concept.

However, its interesting that both Ptolemy and Valens seem to have used quadrant systems to assess planetary strength. In terms of natal work I think I would always want to compare a whole sign chart with a quadrant chart too. I am begining to see how both kinds of charts can relate meaningful information in natal delineation. The only exception might be the extremely high latitude cases we have discussed.

There is also a good argument for Porphry, since it divides the quadrants into equal thirds. What bothers me is the idea of mixing and matching, since if we use whatever "seems to work best", it seems to me a bit like cheating. How do we deal with houses at all if we are considering two systems, and planets are often in at least two different houses, as we flip back and forth. Don't misunderstand me. No matter what I do, I remain very uncomfortable when dealing with high latitude charts with a 0 Cancer or 0 Capricorn AC (or anywhere close to those troublesome points).

The issue for me is what I use for electional and horary charts? As planetary strength is such a key issue in such charts I cannot imagine doing these with a whole sign approach at present. Not least as some hellenistic authorities claim horary is post-classical development.

Ah, questions, questions, and more questions. <pondering>

Gaer

A historical note from The Limits of Influence: Pico, Louvain, and the Crisis of Renaissance Astrology by Steven Vanden Broecke:

Indeed, single longitude domification had recently found a strong advocate in Joannes Sch?ner, who defended it in his textbook De iudiciis nativitatum (1545). An alternative interpretation of certain passages in Tetrabiblos and Centiloquium enabled Sch?ner to reclaim Ptolemy for the doxography of single longitude house division. Another authoritative text that was clearly in favor of single longitude houses was Firmicus Maternus' Mathesis (fourth century). Among more recent writers, Sch?ner mentioned Giovanni Pontano (De rebus coelestibus II.1) and Patricio Tricasso da Cerasari.

Sch?ner attached more weight, however, to the utility of single longitude houses in astrological practice. More specifically, he contested Regiomontanus' emphasis on the subservience of astrological houses to the practice of prorogation:

For the reason underlying the signification or influence of the twelve houses, which the inventors of astrology seem to relate to the zodiac, is different from the underlying times and prorogations. The latter should comply with the former indications, and should not rule or be preferred. For the philosophers agree that the motion of the stars that we consider in the zodiac is the cause of birth and death. In fact, even the ignorant know that time comes forth from the motion which is effected by the sun, and belongs to it. This is almost an observational fact, which the mathematician should not doubt.

Sch?ner linked astrological houses to a more traditional astrological practice that focused on the qualitative analysis of the various elements of a birth chart, rather than the chronological reading that was central to prorogation. Sch?ner's textbook primarily used astrological houses to qualify the influence of astrological signs and planets in a birth chart. This made it desirable, in his opinion, that the common referent for the position of signs and planets (the ecliptic) would also be used to determine the position of houses.

The technique of revolutions, which revolves the natal chart by assuming a division of the zodiac in equal houses of 30? each, was also adduced as favorable evidence. See Sch?ner, De iudiciis, fol. 05.

Even so, the ubiquity of Regiomontanus' equatorial method compelled Sch?ner to implement them in several sample-genitures, while claiming that personal experience indicated the superiority of single longitude division. Sch?ner, De iudiciis, fol. 05.

I am always compelled to get my 2 cents in to any discussion on houses. I was born at such a time as to have mixed angles--Sagittarius rising with a Libra midheaven. I cannot avoid interceptions when my chart is evaluated under a quadrant system. Under Placidus, Porphyry, Topocentric, Regiomontanus and Alcabitius (I think), I have Leo intercepted in the 8th house. I have Sun conjunct Pluto in Leo. I have spent 27 years working totally away from the public in banks and insurance companies--mostly as a computer programmer. Campanus houses keep my Sun in the 8th, but intercept Cancer and Capricorn. Koch houses put my Sun in the 9th, but intercept my Virgo stellium there. Equal houses and Whole-Sign houses also put my Sun in the 9th.

I would have loved to be a college professor, but other than teaching sophomores when I was in grad. school, nothing happened.

I won't quibble among those systems that give me Leo intercepted in the 8th, but I can assure the world which systems do not describe me.

Don Borkowski wrote:I am always compelled to get my 2 cents in to any discussion on houses. I was born at such a time as to have mixed angles--Sagittarius rising with a Libra midheaven. I cannot avoid interceptions when my chart is evaluated under a quadrant system. Under Placidus, Porphyry, Topocentric, Regiomontanus and Alcabitius (I think), I have Leo intercepted in the 8th house. I have Sun conjunct Pluto in Leo. I have spent 27 years working totally away from the public in banks and insurance companies--mostly as a computer programmer. Campanus houses keep my Sun in the 8th, but intercept Cancer and Capricorn. Koch houses put my Sun in the 9th, but intercept my Virgo stellium there. Equal houses and Whole-Sign houses also put my Sun in the 9th.

I would have loved to be a college professor, but other than teaching sophomores when I was in grad. school, nothing happened.

I won't quibble among those systems that give me Leo intercepted in the 8th, but I can assure the world which systems do not describe me.

in another forum i was almost convinced that placidus is best. It places Venus and Sun in my 9 house instead of 8, which explains my identification with foreign cultures(venus in 9).
I dont think the ascendant ruler Mercury, the sun ruler, Saturn and the pisces moon ruler Jupiter together in Aquarius in 9 could explain that or could they?

In Global Horoscopes, II, Michael Edwards wrote:

Placidus and Sign/House alone are truly valid modes of domification everywhere between the two Polar circles.

In the same article, Michael Wackford wrote:

Recognition of Sign/House continues to depend upon the firm establishment of its theoretical basis (including its circumpolar procedure) and whether or not it is appropriate to use the method in conjunction with the Tropical Zodiac.

Now that it has been firmly established that the only two valid systems of house division are Placidus and Sign/House, which of these is (in terms of theoretical integrity) best suited for use with the tropical zodiac? I ask this because there seems to be some doubt as to the appropriateness of using the tropical zodiac with the Sign/House system. Do any of our learned divines have any opinions on the matter?

Recognition of Sign/House continues to depend upon the firm establishment of its theoretical basis (including its circumpolar procedure) and whether or not it is appropriate to use the method in conjunction with the Tropical Zodiac.

I don't know anything about the sidereal zodiac, but I do know a little about the constellations. They are of unequal size. Therefore, why wouldn't sign/house be appropriate with the tropical zodiac? That's how it was used a couple of thousand years before the birth of Cyril Fagan.

Tom[/quote]

I don't know anything about the sidereal zodiac, but I do know a little about the constellations. They are of unequal size. Therefore, why wouldn't sign/house be appropriate with the tropical zodiac? That's how it was used a couple of thousand years before the birth of Cyril Fagan.

Yes, this makes sense. I do not really understand why one would wonder whether it is "appropriate" (as Mr. Wackford states) to use Sign/House in conjunction with the tropical zodiac. Maybe there is something here that I am missing ... ?

But I want to add that the series of articles by Mike Wackford is wonderful. Unmatched, really. He has clarified so many matters related to the various methods of house division. Hundreds of years' worth of controversies, to be precise.

Mike Wackford's expert application of the horoscopy we know to polar regions should constitute required reading for all would-be horoscopists.

Oh, yes.

I'd like to add my agreement too. I know that the series requires a commitment - it's not the easiest read; but it really is worth the effort. It has left me with a dliemma - do I carry on with Regiomontanus, which I have always been completely happy with, or is it time to break the convention of horary astrologers and switch to Placidus? I believe Mike Wackford has proven the case for Placidus. I wouldn't do justice to his argument of why sign/house may not be appropriate, but it seems to me that his whole argument about whole sign dividision in the polar regions creating divisions of space that are not above the horizon discounts it.

The argument is perhaps easier to recognise in Mike Edward's afterword:

Wackford's key point, so concisely demonstrated in his survey of how the various methods of domification perform in polar regions, is that the moment we calculate the meridian,(*) we engage with the semi-arc system of domification, favoured by Magini and Placidus (and by Ptolemy too, given his comments on prorogation - mw). So, after deriving the Ascendant, hence the actual semi-arcs, to then depart from the temporal sphere in order to trisect those semi-arcs by any other principle - most often derived from the right sphere - is grossly inconsistent and simply begs all righteous contumely heaped upon us by our critics. NB: our eyes see the sky as a flat screen, which Placidus acknowledges, unlike other systems whose procedures literalize the sphericity we do not see, at the price of the perfect astrological houring of the astrolabe, thus dumping us, as do other systems, back in the right sphere.

* - Meridian means half a day. That is not space, it is time.

I'm glad all of the articles are now posted. I have to agree that Mike's exposition is one of the best I've seen on the subject, and that he makes an excellent case for the semiarc method of domification. There are also a few bits I disagree with, but those are more in the area of rhetorical devices than anything else (the daily/yearly correlation and the use of seasons as analogy, the comment about the meridian belonging only to the semiarc system, and a few other bits). I've also found the "space/time" division distinction less than useful: they're really two faces of the same set of abstractions.

Mike, if you're reading this, I have a copy of the Koster book and may be able to help you with access to it, though I don't intend to lose it. The whole book is a bit strange in that he first describes what he calls the "fundamental" house system or domification. It's what we would call "true" Campanus, placing points on the celestial sphere into house positions based on their body coordinates (2D) rather than their ecliptic longitudes (1D). But then, for all of the other systems he considers (including Campanus!!!), he criticizes them for using 1D positions as the basis for house position, ignoring that at least 2 of them (Placidus and Regiomontanus) also have a concept of mundo position. That he should have described the real Campanus domification as his "fundamental system", and then criticized what amounts to a 1D strawman version of Campanus is incomprehensible.

To Tom (moderator) and Andrew

Apologies, guys. My argument for not using Sign/house with the Tropical Zodiac was a little rushed and doesn?t appear to have made the point adequately. (The original Correlation paper was already extremely long by the time I got to that argument, so much so that it appears on Skyscript over two pages.)

My reasoning is as follows: -

Sign/house is the only method that can be considered ?spatial/static? because it is not based on anything to do with time-consuming rotation.

As a spatial/static method, its 1st house can lay to either the East or the West.

Indeed, with an Asc in reverse, its 1st first must lay to the West if it is to preserve both the order of the signs and keep upper and lower hemispheres where they should be (thus not inverting the chart).

As a spatial/static method, it should therefore eschew anything that has to do with time-consuming rotation - and that includes the Tropical Zodiac, the fiducial of which is the Equator. (The Equator is a product of rotation.)


Mw