Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi all

I was curious to know what people think of the idea that Planetary Joys become redundant if you construct a horoscope anti-clockwise.

This has been done since the Late Hellenistic period although the practice of using a clockwise zodiac appears to have lasted in some quarters until the medieval period.

If Joys are still used by those interested in studying the usefulness of more traditional techniques can anyone explain their rationale to me? Particularly as regards Jupiter and Saturn in the 11th and 12th.

Thanks

-deleted-

astrojin wrote:For example, if in a day chart sun is located in the second house - then sun is the predominator. Sun is important in your chart and the trigon lords of the predominator determine your overall life.

Hi astrojin, I like your writings escept the bold above.
How can Sun be in the second house in a day chart!?

astrojin wrote:Mercury is usually considered strong when oriental and oriental planet can only be seen when it rises before the sun in the easterly horizon (ascendant).

Does oriental not mean a planet nearer to the asc than the sun?


As about joys I think Saturn does not enjoy in 12th, but Jupiter does there. By the way I think Saturn feels well in 11th, 10th, 7th, 6th and eventually 8th and 3rd. Also I think 1st house is the worst location for Saturn. So I do not understand why W. Lilly said Saturn to be the cosignificator of the 1st house. If you have thought about Saturn in the houses I'll be glad to know your thoughts.

Thanks Astrojin

I posted this in response to the following articlehttp://www.astrophoebe.com/astrology/index.html#5


''According to the ancient system of planetary joys the moon rejoices in the 3rd. This would have been the 4th in a north-facing chart, and would have corresponded to Cancer where the moon is dignified. Mars rejoices in the 6th, which would have been the 1st, corresponding to Aries, in a north-facing chart - the sign of his rulership. Mercury rejoices in the 1st, which was the 6th, corresponding to Virgo, where Mercury is indeed ruler. Venus rejoices in the 5th, which would have been the 2nd where Venus is strong as ruler of Taurus. Also, it should be pointed out that in Hindu astrology Venus rules in the south-east, which applies when the chart is orientated northwards and the 2nd house lies south-east. Thus the joys of the four planets entered below the horizon in Fig. 3 can be explained if a north-facing chart direction is taken.

Above the horizon we find Saturn rejoicing in the 12th house. This would have been the 7th in a north-facing chart, which also makes more sense as Saturn is the ruler of the West in Hindu astrology (which is where I am suggesting Greek astrology originated) and is traditionally exalted in Libra? the sign corresponding to the 7th. The Sun rejoices in the 9th, which would have been the angular 10th house previously. Capricorn is not the sign of the Sun?s dignity, but when in the 10th he is in his full mid-day strength. That leaves only Jupiter, and I admit I can find no reason for Jupiter rejoicing in the 11th''


Wyss's theory makes some sense if we consider that on some level the Hellenist's realised that signs/houses shared a similarity, although the problem of Jupiter remains.

Wyss seems to be saying the issue of Joys and Houses became confusing as it was a reaction to an orignal error, an effort to try and rationalise away a mistake. So the 12th house being seen as unfortunate and full of negative meanings was a way of enabling Saturn to continue to 'rejoice' there.

Which makes sense in relation to Saturn at least, as it is uncomfortable in the 12th once the 12th is seen as Piscean.

When did the signs/house meanings start to merge?



[/quote]

When did the signs/house meanings start to merge?

My guess is that happened about the late 19th - early 20th century at the earliest. A quick glance at Luke Broughton's The Elements of Astrology (1899), and A.J. Pearce's A Textbook of Astrology (1901) indicates for them anyway, the practice had not begun.

However Evangeline Adams writes in Astrology: Your Place in the Sun (1927)

"... for there is a natural correspondence between the meanings of the signs and that of the houses." - Dodd Mead page 325)

Adams was taught by several people including a pupil of Luke Broughton's, Catherine Thompson, but she had other influences, and she was writing for the masses, not informed students and practitioners.

Tom

Thanks Tom

I have Alan Leo's -Symbolism and Astrology' which merges them, seeing as he died in 1916 we can assume an earlier date than 1927. Unfortunately the book is undated.

Looking through the House Rulership's in Practice article here, I?m assuming it's from Deborah Houlding's book, you can see the link to the signs either emerging or latent.

I was wondering about Ficino as he noticed how 'character was fate' to some extent and I assume he would have been more conscious of the correspondence.

I suppose another question is when did the Joys disappear and was this informed by the idea that they might have been an error in the first place?

-deleted-

-deleted-

I've wanting to comment on this thread, but I hurt my thumb a few days ago and it's the one I hit the space bar with, and it hurts every time I do that. It is a little better today. It isn't serious. It's just that this very minor injury is in a very bad spot for typing.

Astrojin wrote:

First: House = Sign = Planet. The first house = the first sign (Aries) = Mars. Therefore, Mars is "natural ruler" of first house. The same goes for other houses. This is a modern invention and a strict no-no to the traditionalists! emphasis added - tc

Exactly. While I would not be terribly surprised to discover that house=sign=planet was first raised by Alan Leo, the main point is that this is little more than a sort of memory device to help beginners. See Deb's book for a more in-depth discussion. There is some correlation, but nothing profound. Traditional astrology is a coherent whole, or tries to be, and largely succeeds. These little memory tricks are more evidence that modern astrology is little more than a series of techniques with little or no philosophy to back it up.

In fact in order to maintain the house=sign=planet philosophy, we have to dump some pretty standard astrology that has been around for millenia. For example, moderns are taught that the second house, the house of money (they mean "wealth"), has Taurus on the cusp and is ruled by Venus, so Venus and Taurus are the significators for wealth. What happened to Jupiter, the traditional significator of wealth? Venus rules some of the things, e.g. luxuries, that the native does with this wealth. The wealth itself is Jupiter. But Jupiter is relegated to the 9th house (where he is in the Chaldean system, too) and Neptune is given the 12th. Jupiter is dropped from wealth for no good reason.

"Money," a medium of exchange, is ruled by Mercury, but Mercury is dropped from that rulership because he "naturally rules" the 3rd and 6th houses that have nothing to do with trading or exchanging.

I could go on but my thumb hurts. The point is that house=sign=planet is not part of the astrological tradition. It does not hold up well within the traditional framework. And it may be just another blow against sensible astrology struck by Alan Leo.

Tom

Nicholas Cupleper in 'Astrological judgement of Diseases From the Decumbiture of the Sick':

some Authors hold an opinion that the sings carry the same signification in order that the houses of heaven do, and that Aries should signify life; Taurus estate; Gemini brethern and short journeys, you know the rest. Truly my own opinion is, many Authors invented posterity for truth; who taking them up without trial, cloathed Tradition in Plush and left Poor Reason to go in Rags.
I take this to be one of that generation, and I prove it thus: By this account Cancer should rule Fathers, ...

According to Wyss, Sasportas, Rudhyar and I'd assumed most astrological historians today, House have always been related to Sign.

As Sasportas says you have the 'Outer' meaning of the house and then the more subtle or underlying principle.

I'm not sure about Leo as he seems to be part of the Theosophical tradition, which stems from Indian Astrology. I don't know much about this. .

I suppose Jung would be the father of modern Psychological Astrology and his (astrological) ideas came from Plato or at least the Neo-Platonists
(3rd century). When Ficino and the Neo-Platonic Astrologers of the Renaissance tried to bring Psychological Astrology into the mainstream, exasperated by what Hyde describes as the 'sterile determinism of Orthodox Astrology', I imagine they were trying to persuade the orthodox crowd who had followed the predictive event orientated tradition to integrate the underlying meanings of the houses.

But this is just speculation.

So I don't know if Houlding has missed some of this or if it's inaccurate and the underlying meanings only became more conscious in more recent times. Seems unlikely, as there was plenty of basic psychology in the Mainstream Literature.

Jupiter is still linked to wealth/money. For example, Jupiter in the 7th would dispose you to often ask yourself why you don't have a rich partner. So if you don't you might be a little uneasy about this or be more motivated to find one. So it might follow, as this is a drive/motive, you are more likely to find one.

Can Jupiter say anything about a persons' actual wealth. I haven't seen any experimental or empirical evidence for this. But it?s interesting how the symbolic and literal can co-incide sometimes, never enough to satisfy the strictures of academia unfortunately.

I'd have thought that Money, as it is so laced with meaning, would be related to all sorts of signs/houses/planets in numerous ways. I can't say I have ever looked into this. I think Lyn Bell has lectured on this?

Although this gets me thinking about the Joys again. Didn't Gauquelin find Mars to be strong just before the 7th house cusp? What about Saturn in the 12th. Although if Gauquelin was using Whole signs this may negate this idea. What house system did he use?