Skyscript Astrology Forum

astralwanderer wrote: Perhaps a misunderstanding of this use of planet-sign-house in melothesia led to the development of the various 'astrological alphabets', perhaps most notably in the c.20 by Zipporah Dobyns.

I wonder why the houses are counted against primary motion instead of following it. It seems kind of illogical.

Using a quadrant house system, after a planet rises over the horizon, it actually goes through the 12th house first. Then the 11th, then the 10th, and so on. The 1st house is actually the last house below the horizon, before a planet rises again.

So, why don't we call the "12th house" the first house instead? Wouldn't Aries as the first sign (according to secondary motion) be related to what is now called the "12th house", which is actually the first house (following primary motion)?

Astrophilus wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:34 am I wonder why the houses are counted against primary motion instead of following it. It seems kind of illogical.

They are numbered in order of rising. The sign(s) and any planets in the first house rise first, etc.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 9:19 am

Astrophilus wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 7:34 am I wonder why the houses are counted against primary motion instead of following it. It seems kind of illogical.

They are numbered in order of rising. The sign(s) and any planets in the first house rise first, etc.

Okay, thanks. However, still I'm not sure if it makes sense to equate what we call the 1st house with Aries.

Using the Tropical zodiac, I thought the ASC degree had symbolic affinity with the spring equinox. A new day starts as the Sun is (re-)born on the horizon and enters 12th house. Likewise, a new year starts and nature comes out of hibernation again when the Sun crosses the celestial equator into Aries.

Sun is exalted in Aries, the first sign above the equator. 12th is the first house above the horizon, after sunrise.

Astrophilus wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:23 am Okay, thanks. However, still I'm not sure if it makes sense to equate what we call the 1st house with Aries.

Using the Tropical zodiac, I thought the ASC degree had symbolic affinity with the spring equinox.

Apparently the originators of the twelve-house system didn't follow that line of reasoning. Perhaps because they didn't use the tropical zodiac (= the zodiac where Aries begins at the equinox).

However, still I'm not sure if it makes sense to equate what we call the 1st house with Aries.

I think this is the point of Joseph Crane's article - it doesn't make sense. There are two different frames of reference in play:

Signs - the annual cycle of the Earth about the Sun, in the tropical zodiac beginning at the Spring Equinox
Houses - the daily rotation of the Earth on its own axis.

If any sign-house correspondence might make sense, it could be for a sunrise chart I guess. Here the corresponding beginnings would be the Vernal Equinox = sunrise. We might want to draw a symbolic analogy between Spring-Aries-Sunrise-Aries.

Here is an article by Anthony Louis where he says...

https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2017/04 ... he-houses/

"The planets taken in Chaldean order (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon) are consignificators of the houses falling in the same sequence."
-----
Martin wrote...

"Apparently the originators of the twelve-house system didn't follow that line of reasoning. Perhaps because they didn't use the tropical zodiac (= the zodiac where Aries begins at the equinox)."

It would be more accurate to say that both zodiacs (Tropical and Sidereal) were the same.
The best explanation I have found is through Elizabeth Vreede in her Septembre Letters where she says that according to Steiner the Zodiac of the stars defines the "structure" of our human life while the Zodiac of the seasons with the Sun defines the "life" on Earth. And she gives examples of plants and animals on earth which have different structures depending on the constellations above their head. As you know, some constellations never show up in some parts of the world while others are constantly visible.
But it is the Sun with the seasons which provides life on Earth.
Both Zodiacs are part of our reality. And one does not negate the other.

Ouranos

astralwanderer wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 12:08 pm I think this is the point of Joseph Crane's article - it doesn't make sense.

Nice to hear/read. However, did Mr Crane - or anyone else for that matter - also consider reversing the Twelve Letter Alphabet: Aries = 12th house, Taurus = 11th house, etc.? Or am I the first person to suggest this?

If any sign-house correspondence might make sense, it could be for a sunrise chart I guess. Here the corresponding beginnings would be the Vernal Equinox = sunrise. We might want to draw a symbolic analogy between Spring-Aries-Sunrise-Aries.

You talking about 0° Aries = sunrise reminded me of something.

On the North Pole (representing the Northern Hemisphere as a whole) sunrise happens as soon as the Sun passes the spring equinox at 0° Aries. This is because at 90°N the horizon and celestial equator coincide with each other, hence N declination = + altitude. As the Sun wanders through the subsequent degrees of Aries, it climbs higher above the polar horizon. Aries is literally like the 12th house on the North Pole.

according to Steiner the Zodiac of the stars defines the "structure" of our human life

Hi Ouranus - do you have any examples of what this means as I don't really understand what the concept is getting at. Surely the seasons provide a primary form of structure to human life?

Thanks for the link to the Louis article - very helpful.

Ed

Ouranos wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 1:29 pm

"Apparently the originators of the twelve-house system didn't follow that line of reasoning. Perhaps because they didn't use the tropical zodiac (= the zodiac where Aries begins at the equinox)."

It would be more accurate to say that both zodiacs (Tropical and Sidereal) were the same.

No, it wouldn't, actually. The Babylonians who defined the equal-sign zodiac put the vernal equinox at 8° or 10° Aries, that is, they defined 0° Aries as a point 8-10 degrees prior to the equinox. The 8° offset then became the standard zodiac among astrologers in Hellenistic Egypt and was explicitly advocated by Vettius Valens (transl. Riley, emphases added):

Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive. The middle degrees up to 15° are mild <and fruitful; the following degrees are hot and cause plagues> of animals. This sign has 19 bright stars. (Anthologies I 2,3)

I thought it best to use Hipparchus for the sun, Soudines, Kidynas, and Apollonius for the moon, in addition to Apollinarius for both bodies (if one applies the addition-factor of 8°, which I believe to be correct). (Anthologies IX 12,11)

Hipparchus and other non-astrologers (and later Ptolemy, who followed Hipparchus) used the equinox as a starting-point, apparently for ease of reference, but as seen from the quotations above, the two systems were not the same, and astrologers were aware of the fact. (What they were not always aware of is the phenomenon of precession, but that's a separate discussion.)

No, it wouldn't, actually. The Babylonians who defined the equal-sign zodiac put the vernal equinox at 8° or 10° Aries, that is, they defined 0° Aries as a point 8-10 degrees prior to the equinox. The 8° offset then became the standard zodiac among astrologers in Hellenistic Egypt and was explicitly advocated by Vettius Valens (transl. Riley, emphases added):

In the sidereal Zodiac yes. As it says, what they called the Vernal Point at 8-10 degrees, not 0° Aries. The Vernal Point was moving.
They did not defined 0° Aries as a point 8-10 degrees prior to the equinox but the Vernal Point which is very different.
From Latin, vernālis (pertaining to spring; vernal)
In the tropical zodiac, the Vernal Point, also known as the First Point of Aries, is the point in the sky where the Sun crosses the celestial equator from south to north.
In the sidereal zodiac, the Vernal Point follows the precession of the Equinoxes but it should never be equated to 0° Aries. It is a misnomer.
Do you see the difference Martin?
But as far as we look at it, spring always comes back at the Equinox, the Sun's path hasn't been following the stars for the seasons.

Martin Gansten wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 2:40 pm Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive.

Aries is "watery"? I thought it was a fire sign.

Maybe he confused Pisces with Aries. Unfortunately my Greek is not good enough to check the original text.

Astralwanderer,

Translating Vreede from French to English here...

"The world of plants takes its shapes from the starry sky.... The constellations send to Earth the forces that give plants their shapes. If we look at the sky, we find in the Corona Borealis an archetype of the "tulip" shape. The lily, on the other hand, corresponds in shape to the constellation Lyra.... We see this shape in the arrangement of its stars, and even better in the traditional image of the lyre, which has been attached to it. (Fig. 59. Le Ciel des dieux, Elisabeth Vreede).
And it depends not only on the seasons but also on the geographic location on Earth, where the cosmic forces are stronger in Polar regions while the telluric forces predominate around the Equator. That is a simple example of how life on Earth is structured like the stars. Looking at the growth of a plant, it imitates the motions of the galaxies, as if you would be looking at a starry sky.

Ouranos