For
the newcomer, and even for experienced
astrologers, the question of which astrological
house system to use is a vexed and often
complicated one.
Two
of the most important factors in any
astrological chart are the Ascendant and the
Midheaven. The angle of the Ascendant shows the
degree of the zodiac that is visible just on the
horizon at the moment of birth. The Midheaven
(MC) indicates the degree that is highest in the
sky above the horizon at the place of birth.
Obviously,
these two angles differ considerably depending
upon where the birth takes place. Exactly on the
equator, nights are always 12 hours long; the
Ascendant is always square (at 90 degrees) to
the MC. But the further north or south you go,
the more slanted the MC is to the Ascendant -
people in northern Scotland, for example,
experience very long winter nights and very
short summer nights. In such a case, the MC is
clearly not literally square the Ascendant. How
can this be shown accurately through the
astrological house system - and does it matter
if it is not? To answer this, we first need to
consider a little of the history of the concept
of astrological houses.
Astrological
house systems are generally used as a way of
taking the environment into account in judging a
natal chart. Each house 'deals with' a specific
sphere of life, and planets and points within
that house are thought to express themselves
especially in matters related to that house.
The
very first astronomers were in fact court
astrologers by trade, and astronomers as a hobby
(how times change...). These ancient astrologers
had devised a division of the zodiac called
mundane division in order to study how a
specific personality (shown by the signs and
planets) would deal with the environment in
which it found itself. Claudius Ptolemy
discussed in great detail the problems of house
divisions, and the experiences covered by each
house.
Hence
some house systems are thousands of years old;
others maybe only thirty. This diversity is one
of the main points of contention between
astrologers themselves. All systems are
astronomically valid, but their standpoints
vary, and therefore so do the degrees at which
the houses fall. Many astrologers are even
unaware of the conceptual differences in the
various house systems, and tend to stick rigidly
to the one which they were taught. This is
understandable - calculating different house
divisions by hand is very laborious and
long-winded, and even today with computer
software available, the busy astrologer usually
has other more pressing matters to attend to.
How
then does an astrologer choose a house system?
Well, the individual studying alone is more than
likely to use Placidus Houses. The reason for
this is simple - he has to consult an ephemeris
in any case, and Raphael's Ephemeris is the most
widely used, which gives the information needed
for Placidus Houses.
Students
who study with a recognised school are usually
introduced to all of the house systems, but
taught to use one far more than the others. This
is usually the Equal House system, which
incidentally is also the oldest one. In this
house system, the twelve divisions are very much
like spokes of a wheel, equally spaced at 30
degree intervals, with all houses being the same
size. This is the easiest of the House systems
to use, as it requires no further calculation.
Once the Ascendant is known, one simply divides
the rest of the chart using the Ascending degree
as a starting point - so if the Ascendant is at
22 degrees Leo, this is take as the cusp of the
first house, with the second house beginning at
22 degrees Virgo, the third at 22 degrees Libra
and so forth.
The
Equal House system is conceptually valid within
today's astrological standpoint that every
individual is free to become what their birth
chart symbolises as their ultimate talent. The
Ascendant has been shown to correspond to the
way the person automatically approaches their
environment - the 'persona' in Jungian terms.
This person is therefore likely to approach
every field of life in a specific way. A person
with an Aquarius Ascendant, for example, will
approach money-making and material values (2nd
house) in a Pisces manner, will learn (3rd
house) in an Aries manner, deal with family (4th
house) in a Taurus manner and so forth.
The
biggest criticism of the Equal House system
concerns the position of the MC, which, using
this system is more often than not not
the cusp of the tenth house (or any house) but
rather is found within the 9th, 10th or 11th
house.
The
MC, being the highest point at birth, symbolises
the aims and ambitions one works towards, and,
by extension, one's career potential and public
image. But these areas are also 10th house
matters, devised, because of that house's
association with Saturn, to show precisely these
areas of life. It is therefore conceptually
necessary (so goes the argument) that the MC be
the cusp of the 10th house. For this reason, the
Equal House system has a limited following
outside the UK, although it is still the
commonest House system within the UK.
What
of all the other house systems, then? Why are
their house divisions so irregular? On what
basis are they calculated? It all depends on how
the astrologer perceives the environment, and
therefore on what astronomical planes of
measurement are used to divide the celestial
sphere into 12 houses.
It
is important to understand that even though the
house cusps are irregular in these other
systems, the space they represent is regular.
This is because although the chart is presented
on flat paper, it is in fact a three dimensional
sphere. The twelve equal divisions of that
sphere fall onto the paper at irregular places
(think of the segments of an orange falling onto
the table), depending on how slanted the sphere
is to that piece of paper. The slant of the
sphere depends upon what astronomical
co-ordinates are being used to cut the sphere,
and this in turn depends on what is considered
important in the environment.
Johannes
Campanus, chaplain to the 13th century Pope
Urban IV, was a noted mathematician. He realised
the astrological necessity to have the four
angles as cusps of the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th
houses, as well as the mathematical necessity to
have houses of equal space. He therefore linked
the division to the astronomical equivalents of
the four cardinal points (the Meridian going
through the north and south points of the
horizon and the Prime Vertical going through the
east and west points of the horizon). These
planes are then linked to the geographical
position and latitude of birth, hence this house
system produces cusps which are the most
apparently irregular in size.
For
someone born above the Polar circle, 66 degrees
north, drawing some of the houses would be
mathematically impossible. However, if working
on the chart of, say, a northern farmer or
fisherman then this house system may more
accurately represent his life than some others.
For instance, being so close to the land, it
would be conceivably accurate for him to have
very large 2nd and 8th houses as he struggles to
make a living, which would be much more
important to him than social entertainment or
creative activities (very small 5th and 11th
houses).
The
Regiomantus system was devised by a 14th century
professor of astronomy, Johannes Muller, and was
meant to be an improvement on the Campanus
system. This system uses the Equator and the
horizon as the two planes cutting the sphere,
and since the Equator is at most 23.5 degrees
from the ecliptic, house cusps are much more
regular. Conceptually, the individual is
contained within an environment linked to the
Earth's movement around the Sun. Much used on
the continent, the Regiomantus system could be
argued to be very appropriate to use for someone
who has lived in the same place all their lives,
and to whom then the Earth-Sun links are very
valid.
The
Placidus and Koch systems have a different
conceptual basis, that of time systems. Placidus
de Tito, a 17th century monk and mathematician
devised a system dividing the time it takes the
Ascendant to become the MC. His system became
widespread only in the 19th century when adopted
by Raphael's ephemeris. It could be argued that
the natural approach to life, as shown by the
Ascendant, moves through time as the person
grows and develops. This notion would seem to
fit most people world-wide, and goes some way
(together with Raphael's) to explaining the
popularity of the Placidus system today.
The
Birth Place Method was devised by Dr Koch in
1971. It also uses the notion of a plane of
time, but this time sweeping down from the MC to
the Ascendant, and more closely linked to the
horizon. The MC is therefore considered the most
important point, as well as the local
geographical environment. The MC here is linked
to ego, and to who one is and what one wants to
become. Naturally this emphasises individual
freedom and free will, and therefore this system
is very popular in the US amongst astro-psychologists.
When working with the chart of someone who has
been lucky enough to have the freedom to become
who they want, this system would seem eminently
suitable.
With
modern computerised calculations, it has become
far easier for the astrologer to experiment with
different house systems. In the future,
tailoring the house system to the client's own
needs and environment is likely to become much
more common place, as the ways in which
different systems fit different people is
gradually more and more understood. In time, as
client awareness of astrology goes, those with
the knowledge may even be asked to choose for
themselves which system they would prefer.
Astrology
used properly can be shown to be a first class
psychological tool. Experimentation with
different house systems in order to find the one
that best 'fits' the individual's own
environmental circumstances, can only make it
more accurate in its predictive abilities too.
