13 by Tom @Martin Thanks for looking that up. @Michael Analogies: Morin looked at the planets, signs and houses as having analogies with things or qualities in the life. It's similar to when we say this or that planet means this or that. So Saturn as an analogy with lead and the qualities of lead, cold dry, heavy, drab color etc. Houses have analogies with areas of life. So The 7th has an analogy with marriage. The tenth with fame, the 2nd with wealth. When these things combine, they tend to promise what they are analogous with. Jupiter has an analogy with wealth and the second house has an analogy with wealth, So having Jupiter in the second is a strong indication of wealth in the native's life. The Sun is analogous with fame and so is the 10th, so the Sun in the 10th is an indication of fame. By using analogies we get away from the broad generalities of universal significators. We are told that the Moon is women in our life. The list of women in our life can get lengthy. We have a mother, and possibly a sister, female cousin, female friend, daughter, female employees, aunts grandmothers etc. The Moon cannot possibly mean all those women in every chart, or so says Morin. But Morin also agrees that the Moon has an analogy with all those things. So which one does the Moon mean in your chart? Simple, which house is the Moon in? If the Moon is in the 5th, it is your daughter(s), the 7th your wife if you're a male. In the 11th female friends, in the 6th female employees. But what about emotions? Doesn't the Moon indicate our emotional state? Well it does if it is in the first house, and in a horary (which Morin detested) the Moon tells us what we are worried about by what house it is in. IN the 5th we're worried about 5th house things. The more analogous a planet is in a sign or house, the more powerfully it will manifest in the life or in the horary. But what if we have Mars in the 7th and we're male. Do we marry a man like it or not? No Mars has an analogy with fights. The 7th has an analogy with lawsuits, rivals, opponents, and divorce. So Mars in the 7th would indicate these things in lieu of the spouse and the spouse might be indicated either by the ruler of the 7th or a planet in aspect with Mars or the ruler of the 7th. Sometimes a planet whose analogies are opposite the house it is in are there to make your life miserable. Who wants to marry Saturn? But sometimes we do and our married life is destroyed (Saturn = destruction) or maybe we like a morose partner. From this somewhat superficial explanation that what we get by using analogies in this way is a precision that I think at least, is lacking by the general significator route. It's not that those significations are not part of the planet or sign, but that we need to narrow done our choices in order to produce a more accurate delineation. Although unraveling a life is far more complex than unraveling a horary question, I can see how this approach is somewhat similar to hoary in which we use the planets for signifying only what pertains to the question. Morin uses the planets according to analogy and how that analogy fits in the chart. Quote Thu May 22, 2014 11:17 pm
14 by Michael Sternbach Thanks "Major Tom"! This is a brilliant explanation of Morin's outlook, and it seems to hold quite true (at least as far as my own chart is concerned). 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? Regarding the question whether there can be a precursor of the "modern" sign/house analogy found in this author's work, James informed me personally, that Morin did see the 4th, 8th, and 12th houses as connected with the water element but couldn't give the exact reference back then. Quote Fri May 23, 2014 12:07 am
15 by Graham F Not much time now, but thanks Tom for remarks on analogy, but what I really meant was, is this particular analogy (by sign, since "since house 6 is analagous to Virgo" as Brittain says or directly implies. Michael/James - I'm pretty sure this is a misunderstanding of Morin's (brilliant) "Cabal of the 12 Houses Astrological" (from Book 17), in which he gives a coherent view of the houses as being arranged in 4 trigons rooted in the 4 angles , presented antizodiacally (diurnally). I don't think he says these are to be associated at all with the elements or the signs. They are very similar to the Indian house trigons Dharma - Artha - Kama - Moksa. For Morin, H1-9-5 are about Life and spiritual vocation, 10-6-2 about honors/work/possesions, 7-3-11 about "Marriage" (Desire for the Indians, i.e. Kama), 4-8-12 about "the end of things, affliction, death" (Maksa, liberation for the Indians). Graham Quote Fri May 23, 2014 6:27 am
16 by Tom 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. Quote Fri May 23, 2014 11:50 am
17 by Graham F 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 Quote Fri May 23, 2014 2:46 pm
18 by Tom 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. Quote Fri May 23, 2014 6:13 pm
20 by Tom 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 Quote Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:43 pm
21 by Tom 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. Quote Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:46 am
22 by Michael Sternbach 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. Quote Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:35 pm
23 by Tom 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. Quote Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:09 pm
24 by Michael Sternbach 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. 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. Quote Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:44 pm