Astrology Articles   Result Of 12 Houses in Astology

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.