Ok.. the ruler of the sign on the cusp of a certain house
represents/rules that house.
However, there are several conflicting opinions on it
and let me introduce few.

1) Ptolemy: In Tetrabiblos, he goes on to say that there are 5 perogatives; house, exaltation, term, triplicity, and any relation to that degree (by aspect or by being on that degree I assume) and any planet that qualifies most of these perogatives hold dominion over that degree. This is regardless of point system. According to his theory, even a planet that is not a house ruler, but lets say a term, triplicity ruler and aspecting that degree, will be the ruler of that degree and a house which has its cusp casted on that degree.

2) Arabs insist on points system, and they define a house ruler as any planet that gains the most points according to essential dignity table in a certain degree, and that planet becomes the ruler of that house.

3) Dorotheus seems to be obsessed with triplicity rulers and always consider them regardless of the house ruler.

4) Later in 17th century when astrology went through simplification, only the house ruler of the degree of a house cusp becomes that house ruler.

I believe there are much more conflicting theories on who is the house ruler.

Can anybody shed some insights on this?

I would welcome a really bonafide, comprehensive, coherent, consistent,
logic rather than just a simple preference of certain author, or because thats how you were initially taught, etc

Sincerely

Jun

I myself use whole sign house.
domicile ruler of the sign provides resources.
"almuten" ruler of the sign is in charge of the affairs of the house.
like the relationship between lord and host.

I use Whole Sign houses, considering the Domicile Lord as lord (or ruler) of the house or place. I also consider input (if any) from the Exalted Lord as well.

If neither of these planets are configured to the house, I look to the domicile lords of the signs in trine to the house in question (following a mention of this technique by Serapio.) I call these Trigonal Lords - and this scheme perhaps had some influence on the planetary friends and enemies one finds in Jyotisha.

I believe that all the rulers has some dominion over the house, but one is more powerful than the others. I prefer not give points as the Medieval tradition does, but I admit that it requeires more skill to measure the strenght of each lord without using points but using some sensibility and astrological maturity..
We have to take certainly into account the ruler, the exaltation ruler, the triplicities rulers and the bound, but even agreeing with Ptolemy that aspect is the 5th dignity I can?t imagine that a planet can have power in a house without aspecting a planets that was already in the house. An aspect only by sign is too weak.
Another point to take into accouny is that some planets have analogy with some houses, so this kind of consideration has some importance too.
For example, Mars has analogy with the 10th, so if we find Capricorn in the 10th and Mars is in Aries he is a good candidate to be the ruler, not only because he is the exaltation ruler, but because the analogy he has with the house.

As always any question in astrology is not simple to answer

Cl?lia

Although not directly linked to rulership, a planet posited in a house is of utmost importance, defining how the matters comes or do not come to fruition. In that regard, I believe Morinus has nailed it.

Other than that, I find that it is more valuable to not look at the planets that are related to the house at first sight, but to look over those that are either inimical or averse to it, at least you will know what does not have to do with said house, and can remove them from the equation.

Hello,

Like Hellenistic astrologers and early medieval/Arabic/Persian astrologers, I use whole sign house system with whole sign Ptolemaic aspects. Using whole sign house system not only simplifies things a lot but, more importantly, it is also consistent with many astrological concepts of sign/house boundaries, aspects, etc. When whole sign house system is used, the cusps of the houses are also the cusps of the signs. This is very much in the spirit of ?as above, so below? because the houses on earth (mundane houses or places) reflect the houses in the sky (signs). Hence, a house (place) cannot have term rulers as much as a sign cannot have term rulers.

Before we discuss the rulers of the signs and any smaller divisions of the signs, let us begin at a ?higher? level. Is there a ruler for the whole zodiac i.e. is there something that rules all 12 signs? Not in general but there is in specific (when we look at a specific chart). What I mean by this is that there is no one planet that rules the whole zodiac or all 12 signs but traditional astrologers have many methods in determining the ruler of the chart for a specific time or place on earth (e.g. natal chart). Hellenistic and medieval astrologers have a bunch of chart rulers serving different functions e.g. Epikratetor / Hyleg, Oikodespotes / Alchocoden, Kurios / Al-Muten Figuris, etc.

When we go down to the signs, we have domicile and exalted rulers for each sign. Hence, all houses also have domicile rulers. If whole sign house system is not used, the houses may be intercepted in one sign or covers more than one sign. The modern astrologers then use secondary rulers which actually complicate things e.g. if the second house begins somewhere in Leo and ends up somewhere in Virgo, the second house will have two rulers i.e. Sun and Mercury. This is not consistent with the idea of sign relationships. In Hellenistic and medieval astrology, there is only one domicile ruler and one (or none) exalted ruler for each sign. Hence, there is only one domicile and one exalted ruler (or none) for each house ? following whole sign house system.

So, we have one domicile ruler and one exalted (or none) ruler of a house/sign. Next, we have another set of rulers for each sign (or house) and that is the triplicity/trigon rulers. They were related to the winds originally but later were also related to the elements of the signs. Hence, all fire signs have the same set of triplicity lords and so are all the water, air and earth signs. Each sign or house has three triplicity lords and the medieval Arabic/Persian astrologers use these three lords to further divide the meanings of the houses (see Ibn Ezra, Al-Qabisi and Bonatti) e.g. the seventh house has the significations of spouse, associates and contentions but the three triplicity lords are assigned to each signification separately. It is also interesting to note that if you use the whole sign house system, all houses trine to each other (whole sign aspect!) would have the same element and therefore, would have the same triplicity lords. Hence, these houses should share the same general signification and they do! The first, the fifth and the ninth are the self houses (1st = self, 5th = extension of self physically i.e. children and 9th = extension of self spiritually e.g. wisdom and religion). The second, the sixth and the tenth are the resources houses (2nd = how the native makes money, 6th = how the native makes money through labour and 10th = how the native makes money through career and status). The third, the seventh and the eleventh are the relationship houses (3rd = siblings and colleagues, 7th = spouse, associates and open enemies and 11th = guardian angel and patrons). The fourth, the eighth and the twelfth are the difficult houses (4th = life after death, 8th = death and 12th = undoing, sins and incarceration). The Vedic astrologers call them the dharma, artha, kama and moksha houses respectively.
The twist in this is that the sect of the chart must be taken into consideration when determining the order of the triplicity lords for the first and second diurnal triplicity lords must be swapped for nocturnal charts.

In conclusion, we have domicile, exalted (or none) and triplicity lords for signs or houses/places. We do not have term rulers for houses. Some astrologers (who advocate the use of quadrant house system) take the cusp of the houses to determine the house term ruler but this is not the practice of the ancient astrologers because the house cusps of all houses coincide with the sign cusps.

The situation is different when we refer to planets (all the seven planets) and points (pivot or angular points, the nodes and Lots) because they have more than domicile exaltation and triplicity lords.

Firstly, we have the term rulers ? the nasty unequal divisions of the signs seemingly randomly distributed among the five planets. There is no term division assigned to the luminaries (yes, actually there is, but let us limit to the most famous term divisions used viz. Egyptian and Ptolemaic terms).

Next, are the faces/decans where it is the division of each sign into equal thirds. I believe that the faces of a sign are used to account for the different ?appearance? of a planet when it resides in a sign e.g. although ascendant in 5Ari has the same domicile, exaltation and triplicity lords as ascendant in 20Ari but the sign Aries has different faces at different decans. It is like saying that Aries is putting on different attire at different thirds. The meanings of the different thirds (the attire that each sign put on) are associated with the planets that are assigned to the different faces/decans. So, we have generally good meanings associated with the second face of Aries because Aries is putting on the attire of Sun. Bonatti says that a planet in its own face (and only in its own face) is like a foreigner with skills required by the natives of the country ? when he puts on his proper attire/clothes/skills, he then is ?dignified? because of this. This gives us a rather interesting delineation for a planet in detriment or fall but is also in its face/decan.

Next, the ancients divide the faces in to thirds making nine divisions in one sign. Medieval astrologers seem to favour the term novenaria and the Vedic astrologers call this navamsha. There is a reference to this in Firmicus? Mathesis viz. munifices and liturgy but then we can?t really make much of these because of limited demonstration of these odd little divisions. Hence, we will leave this one out.

Next, the ancients divide a sign into twelfth equal divisions and they call this (logically) the 12th part. This is a zodiac within the zodiac. This is probably the reason why some call this the microzodiac.

Next, we could have rulers of the degrees call monomoiria. There are two versions reported in Paulus.

So, when a point or planet is located in a specific degree and sign, we have domicile ruler, exalted ruler (or none), triplicity rulers, term ruler, in the face of whatever, in the 12th part of whatever and monomoiria. They should all have different functions and certainly not all are useful!

BTW, there are also other rulers that are not sign related e.g. the general lord of the day (when the sun is above the horizon) is the sun and the general lord of the night (when the sun is below the horizon) is the moon for they are the sect leaders. There is also a more specific day and night lord for each day of the week e.g. for Monday, the day lord is Moon and the night lord (Tuesday eve) is Venus. There is yet a more specific lord for every hour (the planetary hour lord). These rulers are very connected to the sun. There are also rulers connected to the moon for different planets rule for different phases of the Moon and her mansions. It is interesting to note that all of these rulers are used much in natal astrology but they are used extensively in astrological magic and election.

Now we go back to the houses. When we make general delineation of each house (topic of life), I usually look at the planets in the house, planets that rule the house (domicile, exaltation and triplicity lords) and also the planets that aspect the house. I believe that each ruler shares the same house meanings but has a different specific qualitative function and signification. I do not try to find one planet that rules a house because a house can have multiple meanings. Hence, I do not advocate point systems.

Assume that we are delineating the sixth house and assume that we have a nocturnal/night chart. Let Pisces be the sign of the sixth house and Saturn is located in Pisces in the sixth house. Jupiter lord of Pisces and sixth house is in Sagittarius in the third house (so Jupiter is also the lord of the third house). Saturn is lord of the fourth (Capricorn) and fifth (Aquarius) houses.
Saturn is in the sixth house. Is this good for Saturn? Well, maybe not because sixth house is in aversion to the first house. But when say that it is not good for Saturn, is it not good for what Saturn universally means (e.g. land, Father in a night chart, etc.) or is it not good for what Saturn accidentally means (father as lord of the fourth or land as lord of the fourth or children as lord of the fifth, etc.) or both?

What does Saturn do to the sixth house? Does it damage the sixth house (gives illness) because Saturn is a natural malefic especially in a night chart? But Saturn is in the sixth house. Sixth house is also a cadent house and some medieval astrologers associate cadency as ?weakness?. Does this mean that Saturn has less malevolent nature when he is in the sixth house? If Saturn is peregrine in Pisces (assume that he is not in his own term or face), can Saturn actually even signify matters of the sixth just because he is in the sixth?

What about Jupiter (lord of the sixth) in Sagittarius? Does this mean that health is good because Jupiter is in its own domicile? But Jupiter also carries the significations of the third house. Jupiter is also cadent in the third. Does this bode well for matters concerning the sixth house, the house that it rules? Should we even say that Jupiter as lord of the sixth cadent because the third house is the tenth from the sixth (angular)?

Interesting stuff, Astrojin!

Perhaps you could shed some light on this situation for me? If the ASC ruler is in a place which cannot see the ASC but casts it's antisica to the ASC place, does this ease the affliction caused by the ruler of a place not being able to "see" that place, or does it have some other consequence?

What about Jupiter (lord of the sixth) in Sagittarius? Does this mean that health is good because Jupiter is in its own domicile? But Jupiter also carries the significations of the third house. Jupiter is also cadent in the third. Does this bode well for matters concerning the sixth house, the house that it rules? Should we even say that Jupiter as lord of the sixth cadent because the third house is the tenth from the sixth (angular)?

Hello, Astrojin

I wouldn't search for a significator of health in the ruler of the 6th, since it has always signified sickness and injuries(among other things).
Health is signified by the ascendant, its ruler and the Moon.
The potential cadency of the ruler of the 6th may substantially decrease its power to inflict damage, but I don't see how its essential dignity could mitigate the dire effects it might nevertheless have upon the native's health - after all, every planet must act according to the role it was assigned to, whether it be a malefic or a benefic.
Moreover, houses do not become angular by derivation.

Greetings,
Goran

Hello,

Goran:

I wouldn't search for a significator of health in the ruler of the 6th, since it has always signified sickness and injuries(among other things).
Health is signified by the ascendant, its ruler and the Moon.

Bravo! Indeed you are right! I see that you have been well trained in the dark arts of traditional astrology!

Konrad:

Perhaps you could shed some light on this situation for me? If the ASC ruler is in a place which cannot see the ASC but casts it's antisica to the ASC place, does this ease the affliction caused by the ruler of a place not being able to "see" that place, or does it have some other consequence?

I am not sure that I am the right person to answer this. I will give you my thoughts as I practise it myself but in this world of "becoming", I might change my stand if a better explanation comes along.
Short answer: yes, if the lord of ascendant does not see the ascendant sign but it is in the antiscium sign to ascendant, it will have dealings with the ascendant.

Long and twisted answer: It depends - that cliche again!
I believe that the idea that the domicile ruler of a house aspecting (whole sign) to the house is required to determine the outcome of the topic of life represented by the house. The domicile ruler cannot manage its own house when it is not present or connected to that particular house. Connected here cam mean by aspect or antiscium. Hence, the outcome of the house does depend on its domicile lord having connection to the house. If the domicile lord is not connected to the house, we could turn to exalted lord and probably triplicity lord (especially if any of this lord is in the house itself) as outcome deteminant. If none of the lords of the house aspect the house, we would turn to the planet present or aspect the house. In the event that there is no planet aspecting or in a particular house, that house becomes totally isolated and hence, is not conducive for manifestation.
Having said this, it also depends on the topical delineation...

As an example, assume that you are delineating primary motivation of a native and you have decided that the ascendant is the most significant point to use from among the luminaries and ascendant and assume that ascendant is in Sagittarius and Jupiter being domicile lord of Sagittarius is in Capricorn in the second house. The primary motivation of the native is then to go for action and power in his life (because ascendant is in a fire sign) and if the domicile lord aspects the ascendant, then he is likely to fulfil his primary motivation. In this case his primary motivation is not fulfilled directly because Jupiter does not aspect the ascendant even though there is antiscium connection between Sagittarius and Capricorn because the direct fulfilment of primary motivation does require an aspect unless Saturn happens to be in the first house. Then we have direct fulfilment of primary motivation because, not only we have what Ibn Ezra calls mutual generosity but what Abu Ma?shar calls mutual reception via antiscia (we have Saturn in Jupiter?s domicile and Jupiter in Saturn?s domicile and they are in the signs that are connected by antiscium). So, if the native has Jupiter lord of ascendant in the second house but Saturn is not in the first house and the first and second house are connected via antiscium there is fulfilment but indirectly. An example would be someone who is a very good speech ghost writer to a politician who is famous for the speech he makes to the public but actually written by this native. The native gets his primary motivation fulfilled but not directly for his work is not seen by others.

Now, assume that we are delineating the first and second house as being the native and his money respectively. If Jupiter (lord of the ascendant) is in the second and the first and the second signs are not connected whatsoever, Jupiter still carries the meaning of the ascendant and hence, we can still delineate that the native actively search wealth (but Jupiter is not the determinant of the outcome of first house because it does not see the first house). Whether he will be wealthy is not dependent on Jupiter but Saturn as lord of the second house for the outcome of a house is dependent on the lord of the said house. However, the fact that Jupiter being the natural significator of wealth and is located in the second house, Jupiter must say something about second house (and not just his rulership of the first house). Jupiter being in fall would indicate some loss of wealth. If Saturn (lord of the second house) is in Libra (exalted) and it does aspect Capricorn, then the native will experience loss of wealth but later recovers them and gain more (remember that ruler is outcome, therefore the effects of the ruler will appear after the effects of the planet in the sign). This is probably why some astrologers put a lot of emphasis on planets in the sign because their effects are readily observed and quickly manifested compared to the outcome which are determined by the rulers. We see this in horary. In determining the outcome of a question we look to the respective rulers of the related houses (and not planets in those houses!) as outcome is more important than what appears to be happening (represented by planets in the signs) unless the planets in the signs are also rulers of the signs.

astrojin wrote: Now, assume that we are delineating the first and second house as being the native and his money respectively. If Jupiter (lord of the ascendant) is in the second and the first and the second signs are not connected whatsoever, Jupiter still carries the meaning of the ascendant and hence, we can still delineate that the native actively search wealth (but Jupiter is not the determinant of the outcome of first house because it does not see the first house). Whether he will be wealthy is not dependent on Jupiter but Saturn as lord of the second house for the outcome of a house is dependent on the lord of the said house. However, the fact that Jupiter being the natural significator of wealth and is located in the second house, Jupiter must say something about second house (and not just his rulership of the first house). Jupiter being in fall would indicate some loss of wealth. If Saturn (lord of the second house) is in Libra (exalted) and it does aspect Capricorn, then the native will experience loss of wealth but later recovers them and gain more (remember that ruler is outcome, therefore the effects of the ruler will appear after the effects of the planet in the sign). This is probably why some astrologers put a lot of emphasis on planets in the sign because their effects are readily observed and quickly manifested compared to the outcome which are determined by the rulers. We see this in horary. In determining the outcome of a question we look to the respective rulers of the related houses (and not planets in those houses!) as outcome is more important than what appears to be happening (represented by planets in the signs) unless the planets in the signs are also rulers of the signs.

Thanks for the reply!

So in this situation if Mars was also in Capricorn with Jupiter, would he then have some say in the outcome of the 2nd house? If so, would Saturn cease to have involvement in the outcome if he were retrograde or combust, or would he share signification of the outcome with Mars in that instance?

Hello,
Konrad:

So in this situation if Mars was also in Capricorn with Jupiter, would he then have some say in the outcome of the 2nd house? If so, would Saturn cease to have involvement in the outcome if he were retrograde or combust, or would he share signification of the outcome with Mars in that instance?

Asc = Sag, 2nd H = Cap, Mars and Jup in 2nd H:
Mars in the second and exalted ruler of 2nd will have a say on matters concerning the second house, so yes.
Saturn would cease to be the outcome determinant if he is not connected in any way to the the 2nd H but if he is in aspect to the 2nd H but retrograde or combust, it would still decide on the outcome because he is domicile lord of the second and sees the second. Mars in the second still has something to say though because it is the exalted lord of the second and in the second. We are now presented with a new problem. Should we use Saturn who is the domicile lord or Mars who is the exalted lord? We cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that Saturn is the sole lord just because he is the domicile lord (the conditions of a planet being strong or good are different to the conditions of planets as signficator of a place). I would argue that both share rulership of the second house. The effect of Mars in Cap in 2nd H will be manifested first folllowed by the effect of Saturn being retrograde or combust later in life (because Mars is in the 2nd and Saturn is not).

I do not believe that we shoudl try finding one planet governing matters related to one house by whatever method (Almuten, ranking of rulership, etc.). If more that one planets share rulership of a house, so be it. The different rulers sometime say about different significations of the same house. I have seen asotrologers who insist in finding the almuten of the tenth house in order to determine one planet that governs matters concerning the tenth house which is profession. However, there is a problem here. Why should only one planet govern one house and all matters connected to the house? The Almuten of the tenth house; does it signify, status or mastery (skills)? Why do these astrologers assign profession to the almuten of the tenth and why not status (or even other signfications of the tenth)? The problem is even more serious for houses which have very different signfications e.g. 6th house. Should we assign labour (work), servants/maids, illness, or what to the almuten of the 6th house? And if you are thinking on compound almuten advocated by Omar of Tiberias and Schoener, I don't think that simple counting either equal weigthing or 54321 weighting works. To be fair, I simply don't know how the arabic astrologers deal with these compound almutens - they seem to report the techique diligently but with no delineations! I have tried to use them and they simply don't work in practice. I still think that diverse configurations make the native's life unique and not one planet for each areas of the native's life!

astrojin wrote: Asc = Sag, 2nd H = Cap, Mars and Jup in 2nd H:
Mars in the second and exalted ruler of 2nd will have a say on matters concerning the second house, so yes.
Saturn would cease to be the outcome determinant if he is not connected in any way to the the 2nd H but if he is in aspect to the 2nd H but retrograde or combust, it would still decide on the outcome because he is domicile lord of the second and sees the second. Mars in the second still has something to say though because it is the exalted lord of the second and in the second. We are now presented with a new problem. Should we use Saturn who is the domicile lord or Mars who is the exalted lord? We cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that Saturn is the sole lord just because he is the domicile lord (the conditions of a planet being strong or good are different to the conditions of planets as signficator of a place). I would argue that both share rulership of the second house. The effect of Mars in Cap in 2nd H will be manifested first folllowed by the effect of Saturn being retrograde or combust later in life (because Mars is in the 2nd and Saturn is not).

I do not believe that we shoudl try finding one planet governing matters related to one house by whatever method (Almuten, ranking of rulership, etc.). If more that one planets share rulership of a house, so be it. The different rulers sometime say about different significations of the same house. I have seen asotrologers who insist in finding the almuten of the tenth house in order to determine one planet that governs matters concerning the tenth house which is profession. However, there is a problem here. Why should only one planet govern one house and all matters connected to the house? The Almuten of the tenth house; does it signify, status or mastery (skills)? Why do these astrologers assign profession to the almuten of the tenth and why not status (or even other signfications of the tenth)? The problem is even more serious for houses which have very different signfications e.g. 6th house. Should we assign labour (work), servants/maids, illness, or what to the almuten of the 6th house? And if you are thinking on compound almuten advocated by Omar of Tiberias and Schoener, I don't think that simple counting either equal weigthing or 54321 weighting works. To be fair, I simply don't know how the arabic astrologers deal with these compound almutens - they seem to report the techique diligently but with no delineations! I have tried to use them and they simply don't work in practice. I still think that diverse configurations make the native's life unique and not one planet for each areas of the native's life!

Hi Astrojin,

yes, this is my problem with most traditional texts and the reason I find it so difficult to apply the techniques! Other than Valens' section on eminence, I have not seen too many astrologers actually demonstrate their technique repeatedly in a varation of examples.

Your thoughts on the exalted ruler sure make sense, I started readng Lilly's CA3 for natal work and it just seemed too simple to use the rulers of the house cusps as sole significators or certain planets for certain things such as Mercury for intelligence, especially when Lilly's thoughts on that contradict some of the older astrologers. What do you think of using the triplicity rulers in tandem with what you suggest above? I think I read on this forum that Robert Schmidt advocates using the first lord as the first half of life and second lord as the second with the thrid lord assisting both, while the older astrologers used them as representative of thirds of life.