The Houses: Past and Present.

[Claire19]

WOW Kai :sunny:

Thank you for such an inspirational thread... it's going to be my bedtime reading thread of choice.

I like Venus as co-ruler of 5th with Sun. It fits with the creativity aspect as Venus loves to beautify everything and is primarily involved in creation.

I dont see Venus as the creative sign, it is about harmony, balance and accord and that leads to beauty that is true. Venus is about partnership and not always love, and the Sun and the 5th is about sex and courtship as well as personal ego expression such as creativity and procreativity. It is uncommitted affairs as opposed to the committed affairs of the Venus ruled 7th.

I can see that there is some link but why do we need co rulers? Libra is Libra and Leo is Leo. As I have a stellium in both I know something of which I speak. I see the great differences.

 

[Claire19]

No, it's just simplicity.


That isn't completely incorrect. That natural house ruler still has some influence.



Probably both, plus many things get skewed trying to interpret other cultures through a western view, especially through a western christian view.



No. Pre-traditional view of astrology is that it is "fated." There's nothing you can do. The whole point of doing a natal chart is to learn that you're headed down this path and there's nothing you can do about it.

The problem with so called traditional astrology is that it is based on limited knowledge and non discovery of important planets such as Neptune, Pluto, Uranus which the ancients knew about but the info was lost in the annals of history only to be re-discovered later. FOr instance I dont see Saturn as a ruler of Aquarius no way......Ascribing a planet to two signs was just a neat way to fix the problem of not having the outer planets on their consciousness at the time. There may be some faint connection but Mars is at best a co ruler of Scorpio and Jupiter of Pisces.

SOme things are fated as our karma but how we handle them relies on our own awareness and evolution I would suggest. IN that way we can exert our free will to an extent or it feels that way.

 

[lillyjgc]

The problem with so called traditional astrology is that it is based on limited knowledge and non discovery of important planets such as Neptune, Pluto, Uranus which the ancients knew about but the info was lost in the annals of history only to be re-discovered later.

I'd like to address a couple of points here.
Firstly, as we know, the Outer planets cannot be seen with the naked eye, whereas we can see the planets out as far as Saturn. So from the time humans were on earth to look at the sky, they would have seen the planets that Astrologers based their charts on.
To see the outer planets, you need a telescope.

Phoenicians cooking on sand discovered glass around 3500 BCE, but it took about 5,000 years more for glass to be shaped into a lens for the first telescope. A spectacle maker , Hans Lippershey (c1570-c1619) of Holland is often credited with the invention, but he almost certainly was not the first to make one. Lippershey was, however, the first to make the new device widely known.

There is reference to a kind of telescopic lens back in the 13oo's but certainly not of the strength that would be needed to see the Outer planets.

Advanced use of the telescope is an invention by Galileo. It was he who found out the uses of telescopes in astronomical areas. He used it to view the lunar mountains and the satellites of Jupiter and other elements of the solar system. This was in the early 1600s.
The outer planets were not *found, then lost then found again*. The technology that would be needed for that simply did not exist.There is no evidence that anyone had actual knowledge of those outer planets until around the time of their actual discovery, although theoretical mathematically based , but speculative, knowledge *may* have been had.

Neptune was the first planet to be discovered by using mathematics. After the discovery of Uranus in 1781, astronomers noticed that the planet was being pulled slightly out of its normal orbit. John Couch Adams of Britain and Urbain Jean Joseph Leverrier of France, used mathematics to predict that the gravity from another planet beyond Uranus was affecting the orbit of Uranus. They figured out not only where the planet was, but also how much mass it had. A young astronomer, Johann Gottfried Galle, decided to search for the predicted planet and observed Neptune for the first time in 1846.

Uranus was discovered on March 13, 1781 by Sir William Herschel.

Pluto was discovered by the astronomer Clyde W. Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona on February 18, 1930 when he was comparing photographic plates taken on January 23rd and 29th. The planet was later found on photographs dating back to March 19, 1915. (Tombaugh was searching for a "Planet X" to explain discrepancies in the predicted orbit of Neptune. )

Even if someone like William Lilly had been aware of their existence, he wouldn't have had any information on which to base any hypothesis about them.
To me there's a very strong logical argument for assuming that we will be most affected by planets we can see with the naked eye. And possibly not at all affected by those far away that we can't see.
Astrologers used the planets as far out as Saturn for centuries and still got charts that were correct as astrology wouldn't have survived if no one got it right.In horary, the traditional planets are used and every *life question *can be answered without the use of the outer planets.
I like the logic of Trad astrology.I like that it's based on hundreds of years study and knowledge gathering, that it has stood the test of time.That it works.
Cheers
Lilly

 

[RayAustin]

FOr instance I dont see Saturn as a ruler of Aquarius no way......Ascribing a planet to two signs was just a neat way to fix the problem of not having the outer planets on their consciousness at the time. There may be some faint connection but Mars is at best a co ruler of Scorpio and Jupiter of Pisces.

That's ... interesting. I'd like to know the logic behind this statement

 

[gaer]

The problem with so called traditional astrology is that it is based on limited knowledge and non discovery of important planets such as Neptune, Pluto, Uranus which the ancients knew about but the info was lost in the annals of history only to be re-discovered later.

What ancients knew about Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. And when was this info lost? Do you have a source?

 

[RayAustin]

I also heard that the ancients knew about Uranus, for sure, I don't think to any full extent of its properties and etc. If they knew about Uranus I would think they'd then know about Neptune. Pluto would be more properly hidden. Can't say for certain though.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

The earliest recorded sighting of Uranus was by John Flamsteed in 1690, and Flamsteed was no astrologer. Of course, he had no idea what he had seen (he just put it down in star catalogs) and we only know it as Uranus now due to hindsight.

You have to realize what's being said with this assumption that astrologers "knew" about Uranus. Uranus has a magnitude of about 5.9-5.6 and the best we can see with the naked eye is around 6. So here's Uranus, floating just around the limit of sight and hardly seems to move. So it would seem to me that those times it was observed and noted, it was probably seen as just another star. These appearances and disappearances of it obviously lead to it not being seen in traditional texts because it wouldn't have been visible long enough to be able to take note of its motion and make the appropriate tables. If they had, then for sure it would have been included in the tradition, but that does not appear to be case.

 

[eternalautumn]

Or maybe they knew about it but chose not to add it into an already perfect system.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

That's not the way the evidence points.

Not to mention how grand of a conspiracy it would have to be. Points for creativity though...or paranoia. Your choice.

 

[Pallas-trine-Mars]

If you think about the "Natural houses" they don't quite fit: The 5th house (supposedly like Leo) is ALWAYS below the horizon, while the Sun is there it's definitely nighttime and much colder and darker, the ancients probably saw that also which lead to them creating a system where Saturn of all planets could be ruler of the Ascendant.

I dont see Saturn as a ruler of Aquarius no way......Ascribing a planet to two signs was just a neat way to fix the problem of not having the outer planets on their consciousness at the time. There may be some faint connection but Mars is at best a co ruler of Scorpio and Jupiter of Pisces.

If you don't think Saturn and Aquarius relate to each other you either haven't thought hard enough or you've totally bought into this pop astrology conceptual stereotype that the Aquarius Sun and the sign Aquarius itself as always erratic, upbeat and humanitarian, which I've found to actually be pretty iffy. Remember, Aquarius is the sign in the middle of the winter meaning that like Saturn it is also cold (all of the winter signs have a connection with Saturn, not just my opinion, 2/3 signs are ruled by him and the supposedly Piscean 12th house is his joy), unlike Uranus, Saturn and both his signs are infamous for emotional distance and aloofness. Aquarius isn't always a liberal humanitarian, sometimes it indicates someone who can be tyrannical, as Abraham Lincoln kind of was during the civil war and FDR at WWII, which is often considered a Saturnine trait. The ancients gave Saturn tremendous dignity in Aquarius (though some like Valens I think still acknowledged Saturn's mountain of similarities with Capricorn) because he ruled that sign, had dignity of all the air signs by day (all of which are social, yet detached, as are their rulers Mercury and Venus) exaltation in an air sign, and always considered Saturn inimical to the Sun, so I guess they figured "Hey, Saturn likes air and hates the Sun, so he must <3 his own Aquarius!" I've also done a lot of chart examinations and Saturn commonly shows a connection in those with important Aquarius placements, it's often harder to see the effect of Uranus in the same way as far as the personality style shown by sign placement of the dispositor. Saturn might be a bit easier in Aquarius than Capricorn considering that Saturn and Capricorn are about hard work, Saturn and Aquarius have a somewhat easier lesson of the individual's role within groups and society. Saturn makes [negative] truth apparent and Aquarius says "I know," but Uranus often knows more and Saturn definitely has more in common with the goat sign. Affinities definitely deserve respect and notation, it's proof that astrology works and I also feel the same way of the traditional rulers of Virgo and Taurus as being in need of change.

What ancients knew about Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. And when was this info lost? Do you have a source?

Well, if you're lucky you might see Uranus on a very clear night, so that's where the belief that it and perhaps bright asteroids like Vesta were known but overlooked, but both are still pretty faint and Uranus very slow. I could see them saying "let's just keep astrology the way it is," a lot of traditional astrologers are still a bit at odds with the newer bodies, hmm...

 

[lillyjgc]

Yes as I mentioned in my post:
.There is no evidence that anyone had actual knowledge of those outer planets until around the time of their actual discovery, although theoretical mathematically based , but speculative, knowledge *may* have been had.

I too have always had a problem with Aquarius and Uranus being linked.Even the *sun sign* astrologers define Aquarius as being a *detached* sign and there's certainly an element of coldness in everyone I've met with strong Aquarius.I see it as being fixed in nature too-not quickly changeable and unpredictable as Uranus is described as being. Why is that anyway?When you think about it, Uranus moves very SLOWLY and we can easily predict what Uranus is doing because of that.I don't honestly think the outers have been studied long enough to affix them with strict traits yet.Hundreds of years was spent aligning planets/stars with how they actually play out in Astrology.
I do see a certain affinity between Uranus and technology though from personal experience. I have jupiter conjunct Uranus.So its hard to always know for sure which planet is actually operating!
Like Kai I have often wondered what the past astrologers would have thought about the outer planets.Theres no way of knowing whether or not they would have included them .I *suspect* so and I often include them in Natal, but as for assigning rulerships to them I see no reason to change what has worked for so long. (But I really don't care what other astrologers choose to do.)To me the *proof of the pudding* is in the eating, not the recipe!
For me linking Aquarius with Saturn makes a lot of sense. Saturn IS about responsibility and if Aquarius is linked with the house of humanity and organisations you would be looking at structural changes in order to solve problems.To me that's a Saturn area, very much so.
I really don't know whose idea it WAS to reassign the rulerships, but if it wasn't for the Internet, I doubt it would have caught on!
This link gives a concise overview of Astrology's history.
http://www.touregypt.net/astro/

This link explains how the rulerships were originally assigned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_(astrology)
Lilly

 

[Frisiangal]

FOr instance I dont see Saturn as a ruler of Aquarius no way......Ascribing a planet to two signs was just a neat way to fix the problem of not having the outer planets on their consciousness at the time. There may be some faint connection but Mars is at best a co ruler of Scorpio and Jupiter of Pisces.

Hi,
I'm not an academic and cannot relate the original source but there WAS pure logic in ancient astrology ascribing two signs to a planet. If you take Moon as ruler of Cancer and work clockwise, and Sun as ruler Leo and work anti-clockwise, you will see that planetary alignment follows consecutively:
i.e.
Gemini (from Cancer) and Virgo (from Leo) = Mercury rulership,
Taurus ( " " ) and Libra ( " " ) = Venus rulership,
Aries ( " " ) and Scorpio(" " ) = Mars rulership,
etc.etc.

I believe clasical/traditional astrology refers to such as night (Moon) and day (Sun) rulership. The effect of inner feeling of a planet as compared to its outer action?

Personally, I often think of Saturn as 'the caretaker and archivist' of Aquarius, after once reading that archeology came under Aquarius. I could follow the significance of 'digging up old bones and ruins' to mentally learn and know today how humanity has lived and evolved.

Using such an analogy the significance of Saturn as ruler Aquarius from Cancer and Moon influence could suggest 'the preservation of (air sign= cognitive= mental)memory', don't you think? Everything we do, perceive, feel and learn, etc., gets tucked away somewhere 'for future reference'. Those flashes of enlightenment we like to refer to as coming from 'Uranus intuition' are merely the tucked away and long-forgotten cognitive memories of circumstances from the past re-emerging to fit a circumstance occuring in the future. It's like going to, and consulting the personal reference library of one's mind... however near or distant the initial experience imprinted in memory.

I am especially interested in how astrology affects health. More than any other dual rulership, I find the association of Saturn with fixed sign Aquarius, and Uranus as 'the changed focus' for the future, to be the most intriguing.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[dr. farr]

A fundamental error (historical at least) made by the OP and the traditionalist references cited (such as Deborah Houlding) is that Manilius, Dorotheus of Sidon, Vettius Valens and other original Greco/Roman astrologers did not use the "house" idea at all-they exclusively referred to "places", and these "places" were denoted by the order of signs following the ascending sign of the given chart. They did NOT have a concept of "house" (no, not even of "temple"), and never used such terms as "domus" or even "templi" in their delineative work: always used "locus" or "tropos", all references to the 12 placed chart being always given as the "dodecatropos" (12 places) Since the original Western astrologers did not have the concept of house (or temple), but only of "place" (within a division of the 360 degree circle into 12 places), much of the discussion in this thread, while of great interest, is essentially not reflective of the early Western historical reality regarding this subject.*


*see for example Robert Hand, "Whole Sign Houses"
Also, go ahead and read what the original, oldest book on the subject, Manilius "Astronomica" (14 AD) actually says...

 

[Claire19]

WOW Kai :sunny:

Thank you for such an inspirational thread... it's going to be my bedtime reading thread of choice.

I like Venus as co-ruler of 5th with Sun. It fits with the creativity aspect as Venus loves to beautify everything and is primarily involved in creation.

I agree that Venus is at home in the 5th but not a co ruler.
The SUn and Venus are always quite close together in the heavens and they both indicate in diferent ways pleasure and fun times. The SUn as a creative expression of ourselves and Venus as a means of harmony, agreement and balance.

 

[nordicsoul]

Thanks Kai for this valuable information. I have studied astrology as a hobby in an unsystematic way and all my knowledge is mixed up. I think that I had all the ideas of house rulers from modern astrology without being aware. Thanks your brought this up and frankly, I think that something always annoyed me was kind of repetitions between house ruler and sign, which was always the same of the ruler of the sign. anyway, this is information to digest and I will use my chart to see houses with new light and see how it fits. thanks a lot!

 

[lilithofeden]

Wow! Tons of excellent info - thanks!

 

[JUPITERASC]

...Today we think of Mars as ruler of the 1st, Mars (also Pluto) as the ruler of the 8th.

Not all astrologers agree on that comment though and the idea is not universally accepted amongst astrologers today!

Originally, the Thema Mundi, an Hellenistic Teaching Aid, assigned planets to houses as follows

- there's also a discussion at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52099

 

[furclean183]

Such a long yet interesting and informative write ups. Thanks for sharing such informations.

 

[The Ram]

Not all astrologers agree on that comment though and the idea is not universally accepted amongst astrologers today!

Originally, the Thema Mundi, an Hellenistic Teaching Aid, assigned planets to houses as follows

- there's also a discussion at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52099

Hmmm Nearly half the signs have nothing attributed to them.

I always figured it was pretty clear that the Ascendant is attributed to Aries, being the 1st house and all.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Hmmm Nearly half the signs have nothing attributed to them.

I always figured it was pretty clear that the Ascendant is attributed to Aries, being the 1st house and all.

Not all astrologers agree

....If you look at the Thema chart, take the 4th house. Libra, ruled by Venus (one of the traditional significations of the mother), the exaltation of Saturn. If we play with the ideas a bit, Libra is the natural 4th house. Saturn (the father) has a natural affinity with the 4th (well, that makes a ton of sense, now doesn't it?) and is exalted by Venus in the house that signifies "home/roots." This also gives us Saturn's affiliation with death, as the 4th represents death among other things.