OK, but since the 8th house is about MY death, wouldn't its' position indicate something about my death without the need to involve the Ascendant?

No. The eighth is about the quality of your death but we need to bring you to it. Also the 8th has several meanings and by tying it to the ASC (the body) we've narrowed it down a bit.

What I mean is, if just the ruler of the 8th (let's say the Sun or the Moon which rule one house only) were in the 7th, wouldn't I reach a similar conclusion as above?

Since the Sun is the life force, that is certainly possible, if not likely. The Moon, though is generation and fertility, the opposite of death, it is less likely to result in death when a direction hits it. These things are about timing, too. Morin is showing a way to connect the houses ruled by a single planet. It isn't the only way, and as I said above, it doesn't seem like it always works out so neatly. If we see the ASC or its ruler coming to the ruler of the house of death or coming to something that connects it to the house of death, then we're closer to making the right prediction. This is why he stresses analogy. If the planet doing all the joining has an analogy with death and not life, then the prediction of death, not spouses wealth is more likely to be correct.

Or would I only interpret it as afflicting the 7th house and its' affairs by being there as it is an accidental malefic?

This is a more likely scenario. There is no "one size fits all."

Which brings me to another question. Do I consider the rulers of the malefic houses as accidental malefics? What if I have Gemini in the 8th and Virgo in the 11th which would make Mercury the ruler of both a malefic and a very fortunate house?

In most cases I would say, "yes." Again using progressions or directions to the ruler of the 8th, that would imply death and so it is an accidental malefic.

And yes a planet can rule both a fortunate house and an unfortunate house. The rest of the chart and the predictive methods guide as when to use what and for what purpose.

Tom

Thank you Tom, very enlightening.

OK, I'll do that!

Thanks to my wonderful teachers, I've been advised at a very early stage of my Astrological studies to always make a very clear distinction between the symbolics of the houses ruled by the same planet which, pretty much correlates with what has been mentioned above- the L2 Mercury talks about the money, while that same Mercury when examined as the L11, should be considered as a representative of that sphere of life exclusively. Or, as my teacher would have probably said- Switch the light in the 2nd house and visit the 11th now.
When it comes to the overall picture and blending the symbolics into a single story, no book can help, of course,and the Astrologer will need to put all the shades of the same colour next to each other relying on his reading skills and astrological logic.

So, I'm pretty familiar with the main course of your explanations, Tom, but I'm also very excited to read all this. I've spotted your observations and examples based on Morin's studies already in some other topics and I must say- that will be my very next literature.
Thank you for sharing your impressions, it's been very contageous!

Hmm... John Frawley, I think, says that the house ruler is more important than the planet in a house. The house simply benefits or is afflicted by a planet's presence, but if we want to learn about the affairs of a house in general we should check its' ruler.

Unless I misinterpret him.

Tom wrote:Just to fill in a bit: Morin taught that location was more powerful than rulership. "More powerful" is probably not the best way to explain his point, however. If, let's say, we have Jupiter in the 4th ruling the 9th. When Jupiter is hit by a primary direction (or progression or transit) the effects of the "hit" will be felt more immediately in the 4th than in the 9th. The 9th may well be included in the effects, but the immediacy is what he was explaining.

Another thing to think about. Thanks! I really am looking forward to getting to know his approaches better.

I like the metaphor of turning out the lights in one room and turning them on in the other. I think I'll keep it.

Tom

Oh, be my guest!
Of course, assuming that you're not dyslectic like me, you'll probably put it right and say "Switch OFF/turn OUT the light!" )))), which you, basically already have


@ astropet

It's usually like that- isn't it- we have to chose from all sorts of explanations, on occasions, even contradictory ones. I used to find it very confusing at first but now I appreciate the variety of approaches I usually come across when I start an "investigation" on a certain placement, aspect...It prevents the Astrologer from becoming lazy and dull - there's always plenty of room for our brain cells which is good.

Yes, but I would have liked to find some things that everybody agreed upon for a change!

Hmm... John Frawley, I think, says that the house ruler is more important than the planet in a house. The house simply benefits or is afflicted by a planet's presence, but if we want to learn about the affairs of a house in general we should check its' ruler.

I believe he was speaking about horary here. Different animals altogether, you see?

for instance, a question about health will see usually the first house ruler. In natal astrology, a lot of factors should be observed, like the ASC, the moon, the hyleg, etc, to see the esse of your health

That?s why I think your question is more appropriate to horary. In natal, things are always more confusins. E.g, even if sun is ruling the 8th (Leo on the 8th), you would still have to consider the effect of sun ruling the 4th by exaltation. And the analogy of the sun to fame, father, etc.

I believe he was speaking about horary here

No, I don't think he was talking only about a horary rule. I think I read it in one of his Real Astrology books, though I can't be certain. Anyway, in Lilly's book about the nativities, he almost always mentions the house ruler first and the planets therein are only the third or the fourth factor to be taken into account.

Frawley is generally following Lilly and other 17th century writers more. Over time some of the the rules changed, though not as drastically as between traditional and modern.

Zoller also taught that location is more important than rulership. Zoller followed Morin and Bonatti closeley. Two different teachers two different sources.