Its hardly an original objection to quadrant house systems but I wondered how people deal with the issue of quadrant systems at high latitudes?

As someone living in a location with quite a high latitude 55?55N this is more than a theoretical point for me. I am frequently looking at natal or horary data at either this or higher latitudes.

I get the feeling a lot of astrologers tend to ignore this problem as it doesn?t come up in the charts they look at. Out of sight out of mind I guess. Nevertheless the problem remains for anyone advocating a quadrant house system.

Its quite evident that most quadrant systems popular with astrologers produce quite distorted houses long before we even get to 60N. Campanus is probably the most outrageous example in this respect. However, the popular Placidus and Regiomontanus don?t fair that well either.

Of the systems I have looked at Porphyry or Alcabitius seem to fair best. However, there is no denying that even these systems produce more unequal houses at high latitudes compared to charts cast for people living along the equator. Should not a valid approach produce broadly similar results across the planet? I am aware there are astronomical issues at stake as me move closer to the Poles. Does this very fact undermine such systems?

A lot of supporters of quadrant houses suggest swopping to equal or whole sign houses at very high latitudes. However, this is treating these parts of the world as if they are some kind of freaky aberration. Millions of people live in areas of such high latitude including Russia, Scandanavia, the Baltics, the United Kingdom , Iceland , Alaska, and northern Canada.

Surely, if we have to adopt such an approach to such a large part of the world we should be using it systematically everywhere?

There are obviously complex mathematical differences between the different house systems. However, I am more interested in how people approach this as a practical astrological question.

I know there are several forum members from Scandanavia so I am wondering how they deal with this issue?

Hi Mark,

These are valid points you touch upon. I believe that any house system that depends on the horizon or ascendant as an integrated part of its system will have strange things occur with the houses. There is a series of Michael Wackford on Skyscript on the subject http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html discribing several house systems and the pro's and contra's.

Respecting his method and efforts I however tend to disagree with the proposed method. (Last week I made a little table based upon the discribed method to illustrate how several (traditional astrological) issues would look like http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4555 )
It should be mentioned that Wackford says that the system shouldn't be used with the ecliptic but I personally don't think that in practice this really makes a large difference.

I therefore would prefer house systems based upon the MC/meridian. Those are: Equal-MC, Meridian, Morinus and (if it doesn't exist already) one can imagine an equal system based upon the Equatorial Ascendant. Of which the first two would be my most preferred ones.

Although I sometimes even had revolutionary thoughts of kicking out the Ascendant, this would go too far. I still think the Ascendant is worth a lot using as a 'sensitive point' (and it ?s sensitive, transits to it usually will get noticed) that can fall in various houses.

This is a very interesting thing even for us who don't some across such charts often, I've actually just recently read this Wackford's article .

It would be interesting to hear which house systems Astrologers on New Zealand prefer only I'm not sure we have many (if any) NZ astrologers here on forum.
So, does this mean tht you use Porphyry and Alcabitius , MarkC?

I live in southern Scandinavia, slightly south of Mark's latitude, but I do occasionally do charts for people born very far north. My fianc?e was born somewhat below the Arctic circle, but her Moon has enough latitude to be circumpolar. As Steven points out, it plays havoc with the primary directions software.

I use Alcabitius houses and, like Steven, have not yet had problems casting a chart. Undeniably, the distances between midheaven and ascendant/descendant are sometimes extreme; but the astrology does seem to work. The one problem I have come across is determining to which house a planet belongs (the five-degree rule is no good when a house is just ten degrees wide!). I am still experimenting... I don't know how I would deal with a nativity in which normal quadrant houses can't be applied at all, but I suppose that, again, one would have to experiment.

Personally, I would object to the term 'distorted houses'. To have any raison d'?tre at all (which they obviously had even for the astrologers of classical antiquity), quadrant houses must differ from whole-sign or equal houses; therefore such differences should not be labelled 'distortions'. Quadrant houses may work better or less well than whole-sign houses, or complement them in some way; but neither system is a distorted version of the other.

It would be interesting to hear which house systems Astrologers on New Zealand prefer only I'm not sure we have many (if any) NZ astrologers here on forum.

Hi Aglaya,

Actually, New Zealand is not really a high latitude country in terms of the southern hemisphere. I believe its southernmost point is only down ( or is it up?) to 45S. There are lots of European cities with much higher latitude in the northern hemisphere. In terms of populated areas I believe its only at the southern tip of Chile /Argentina or the Falkland Islands that the southern latitude just exceeds 50S. The problem is therefore overwhelmingly a northern hemisphere one in practical terms of charts you are likely to encounter.

So, does this mean tht you use Porphyry and Alcabitius , MarkC?

As for what I do I have to state I am struggling with this problem myself too. I am not suggesting I have the answer. Like every other controversial issue in astrology its something every astrologer needs to find an answer for themself that personally satisfies them. I gave up using Placidus or Regiomontanus myself some time ago largely due to this issue. Its also due to an increasing interest in the Hellenistic roots of astrology. I have therefore been using the whole sign house system since then for natal charts and I have to state I am very happy with it. It has changed the house rulers of charts in ways that I find more accurately reflects my life and those of others I have examined. I am also free of the muddle of intercepted houses.

Still, I have not ruled out taking a look at a quadrant house system for comparative purposes. This is especially the case with horary. I still have a strong feeling that as accidental dignity is so crucial in horary the quadrant houses could be very revealing. Horary deals with the practical everyday issues that concern us and a house system that more closely mirrors the interaction of earth and sky through the four quadrants has some appeal. Your right I am still debating about whether my preferred system should be Alcabitius or Porphyry to use alongside whole sign houses. Both are very ancient and are probably the two earliest quadrant systems. They tend to produce fairly similar charts in most of the examples I have looked at differing by only 2 degrees on most house cusps although the way they are calculated is totally different.

However, I am wrestling with the latitude issue and the problem of unequal houses it generates. For me its not just an astronomical question as it seems to be for Eddy but also one involving respecting the traditions of astrology and retaining a practical astrological perspective too.

Hello Stephen/Martin,

Thanks for your input. I was hoping you would both respond.

I respect your experience.

Personally, I would object to the term 'distorted houses'. To have any raison d'?tre at all (which they obviously had even for the astrologers of classical antiquity), quadrant houses must differ from whole-sign or equal houses; therefore such differences should not be labelled 'distortions'. Quadrant houses may work better or less well than whole-sign houses, or complement them in some way; but neither system is a distorted version of the other.

Point taken. That was a poor choice of words. I was really just highlighting the contrast in quadrant house charts along the equator vs northern latitude rather than trying to score points for whole signs houses. I wasn't seeking to offend anyone's position so please accept the word 'unequal' in replacement.

However, it seems evident that someone born close to the equator in a location like Nairobi is likely to have a quadrant chart with broadly evenly shaped houses while someone in Reykjavik is likely to find more unequal houses. Is this acceptable? Clearly for some it is and for others it isn't.

I am still uncomfortable with one natal chart I have studied from my location with Alcabitius houses which has 6 houses taking up only 108 degrees of the chart! That means half the houses make up just over 70% of the chart. If this person had been born closer to the equator such large differences in house sizes would simply not be there.

Michael Wackford seem to share this concern about using Alcabitius in higher latitudes:

Like Porphyry's method, the system attributed to Alcabitius was developed in and for latitudes nearer the Equator, where most quadrant systems produce roughly similar Ecliptic cusps. Cusps obtained by dividing the entire celestial sphere require either spherical trigonometry or more arduous and lengthy calculation. The relatively straightforward Alcabitius method provides a serviceable approximation of cusps otherwise obtained; but at these lower latitudes only, where horoscopes always have more equal Ecliptic quadrants.

I suppose that sums up the issue. The further we move from the equator the more uneven the quadrants become. I accept that is unavoidable if we are going to work with any quadrant system.

Hi Eddy,

I therefore would prefer house systems based upon the MC/meridian. Those are: Equal-MC, Meridian, Morinus and (if it doesn't exist already) one can imagine an equal system based upon the Equatorial Ascendant. Of which the first two would be my most preferred ones.

I take it this is a purely theoretical position on your part? I thought you didn't use houses?

I find Michael Wackford's comments on these systems useful:

The Meridian system and the method devised by Morinus both work very well near the Poles, if only because neither uses true geographic latitude. These methods locate all horoscopes at the Equator, regardless of where an event occurs, so their 1st house cusps are rarely marked by the Ascendant. Moreover, since neither division uses the true local horizon, planets and degrees of the Zodiac actually above that horizon often appear below the horizontal axis of the chart-wheel and vice versa.[4] Neither system represents the local skies and both ignore the rising degree

This does solve the latitude problem but at a cost I think very few astrologers would be willing to pay. The ascendant is a fundamental aspect of horoscopic astrology and systems that dispense with it seem nothing more than quaint mathematical constructs to me that ignore the fundamental roots of astrology. Its noteable Morinus never actually used the house system he proposed.

Another one living in the far north here, though less far north than I used to do.

In horary, I use Regiomontanus, and it still works- I'm a pragmatist at heart and I can't argue on the basis of how it's performed for me (ack, I don't mean to sound like an advert for an automobile!). I'm not above the arctic circle, but yes, I get very small houses in two quadrants, and much larger houses in the other two.

In natal, I still use Regiomontanus to assess planetary strength, and for part of the delineation - accidental dignity alone doesn't come through much for people in my experience (anywhere - I have clients from the southern USA, and even in their birth charts accidental dignity doesn't work well). Accidental debility sure does, though, and you need to see it, so you don't give a strongest planet to one in 6, 8, or 12 by quadrant-based system, at least assuming there's anything else that can guide the native's life.

I've played with Alcabitius, and lots of other house systems, and whilst I find Regio somewhat more descriptive of actual circumstances in the chart, Alcabitius would be my fall-back. It works pretty well, too.

But I find that looking at any natal chart using whole sign houses causes a whole other layer of narrative to unfold.

Not very scientific, I know. But based on practise, I'm okay with it. Course, I haven't ever got the chart of someone who was born so far north that their only Ascendant could be 1 Aries or 1 Libra - yet, anyway!

Hi Olivia,

Another one living in the far north here, though less far north than I used to do.

Are you in the USA? If so I imagine this is not really a major problem in the charts you see. Even the most northerly town in the continental USA
(Danforth Maine) is only at only 45'66N.

I have clients from the southern USA

If you had some in Alaska too you might be more on my wavelength

No, I'm not - far above the 49th in sunny Canada. I just get a lot of American clients, for some reason.

And people from Dubai.

Always wondered what was up with that

No, I'm not - far above the 49th in sunny Canada. I just get a lot of American clients, for some reason.

I do have a particular issue with Regio at my own latitude.

Some of the horary charts I have seen using with my own latitude with Regiomontanus do look quite odd in terms of some obscenely large/small houses.

Mark, places where it starts getting dark at 11:30 at night in the summer and light at 2:30 in the morning are north. Same with our four or five hours of daylight in the winter.

You may disagree. I'm not quite in the land of the midnight sun, but pretty close.

You ever actually been to Canada? I've been to Edinburgh, used to live there. Agree, it's north. So is here.

'The 49th parallel' is Canadian for 'we're not in America'. Kind of a defining line, so to speak.