A Comparison of House Systems
A Comparison of House Systems
By
Roland Matthews
(2003)
It is a daunting challenge for a beginning student of astrology to decide on a particular house system to use. The use of houses in astrology is not a new concept, and the reasons for using one system instead of another seem to be more complex than the systems themselves. Some proclaim that simplicity is more important, or that the age of a system is its own validation while others argue that accuracy is more important. Many house systems are available to the astrologer just as an artist has many forms of media from which to choose. For both, the selection of the correct one depends on their preferences and goals.
One of the oldest and most simple systems is the Whole Sign house system. It is ecliptic based, which means that regardless of one’s location, each of the houses will be a symmetrical thirty degrees. The house cusps are determined by the ecliptic, the apparent path of the sun around the earth. Pelletier, arguing in favor of the Equal house system, writes “It seems superfluous to demand mathematical or astronomical precision of a frame of reference for houses that is purely symbolic.”(1) The Whole Sign system is similar except that after the Ascendant is calculated, the first house begins with the beginning of the sign of the Ascendant, and each sign thereafter begins the next house. In the Equal house system the houses begin with the degree of the Ascendant as opposed to the actual sign itself. The Whole Sign system was supported by Vettius Valens (c. 150-175 CE) and as Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight has noted from his translation of the third book of the Tetrabiblos, that “although later than Ptolemy (c. 100-170 CE) historically, Valens represents the earlier tradition uninfluenced by the Tetrabiblos”.(2)
The next system to examine is the Natural or Planetary Hours system. It is a time based system like the Alcabitius or the Placidus systems. The house cusps are found by equally dividing the time it takes for a chosen point (such as the Ascendant or Midheaven) to travel an arc of the celestial sphere.(3) Michael P. Munkasey says in his Astrological House Formulary the method of calculation is done by taking “the times of Sunrise and Sunset for the location and the date of the horoscope. The degrees of the Ascendant at Sunrise and Sunset give the degrees of the Ascendant and Descendant. The hemispheres between the two are divided into six sectors, each representing two hours of time. These sectors also give the house cusps.”(4)
The last system we will compare is the Campanus system. It is a space based system. The basis of these systems is to take another great circle (besides the ecliptic) such as the celestial equator, the horizon, or the prime vertical and divide it into twelve equal parts which are then projected onto the ecliptic.(5) It is named after Johannes Campanus (1220-1296 CE) a monk well known for his mathematical skills. There is evidence that it was “used by Al-Biruni (973-1050 CE) in the eleventh century under the name of the system of Hermes, suggesting a much earlier, unknown origin.”(6) The houses are derived from the trisection of the quadrants formed by the intersection of the horizon and the meridian with the prime vertical. The prime vertical is divided into twelve equal arcs by lunes (sections of the sphere) whose poles are the North and South points of the horizon. The points where the lines cross the ecliptic define the house cusps. The arcs comprising the lunes are house semi-circles.(7) Campanus set a precedent by making the position of a planet in respect to the horizon and meridian of the place of birth more significant than the position of the planet along the ecliptic.(8) This system is preferred by advocates of the sidereal zodiac such as Cyril Fagan, Roy Firebrace, and Dane Rudhyar.(9)
Now that we have a little background information of these systems, we may truly begin to appreciate their differences, similarities, and uses. Unfortunately, all three of these systems do not function well for Latitudes higher than sixty degrees. Most systems other than the Topocentric system fail here. The Whole Sign system fails because the angles become too acute and distorted. The Natural Hours system fails here because there is little distinction between day and night in the Polar Regions, making some houses non-existent. The Campanus system fails in this situation because the lunes are difficult to divide when every direction is South or all North.
In the Whole Sign system, the first house begins with the ascending sign regardless of the degree of the Ascendant. The tenth house begins exactly ninety degrees or three signs prior to the first house regardless of the location of the Midheaven. In the Planetary Hours system, “the Ascendant and Descendant are no longer tied together as a pair, and the Midheaven may fall in any house”. The tenth house consists of the fifth and sixth hour of daylight for that day. In the Campanus system, the first and tenth houses are dependent on the angle of the ecliptic.
If we inspect the birth charts of two separate people, one born on the Spring Equinox (let’s call him Ed), and the other born on the Summer Solstice, (let’s call her Susie), we see that in the Whole Sign system they have equal houses of course, and Ed’s Ascendant and Midheaven are close to being in line with the first and tenth houses, but Susie’s are more in line with the second and eleventh houses. Even though they were born at the same time (but three months apart) the position of the Sun is also quite different. Ed’s Sun is in the eighth house and Susie’s is in the tenth. If we compare their charts in the Planetary Hours system there is a radical difference. Ed’s houses stay relatively the same since the hours are almost equal on the Equinox, but Susie’s houses are extremely different. The Ascendant hasn’t changed much, but sizes of the first six houses have shrunk and the last six are much larger. In the Campanus system their only major differences is the Midheaven has made the fourth, fifth, sixth, and tenth through the twelfth houses larger for Ed and smaller for Susie. As for the differences in the charts for the same person, that is also noticeable. In Ed’s charts, Uranus and Saturn are in different houses. In Susie’s, none of the planets are in the same houses. This could definitely lead to confusing interpretations.
In conclusion, it can be said that with all the differences represented by these three systems, the fact remains that the interpretation of their meanings is left to the astrologer to discriminate on their own. There is much information on the mathematical equations of each system, but very little discourse of the history and usage of those systems. It appears that throughout history, astrologers were involved in making predictions, aiding clients, and defending their views. Few elucidated as to why they preferred their specific system of choice, other than attributing it to their teachers or the purity of its antiquity. It must depend on whether the astrologer wants to approach the situation at hand from an ecliptical, spatial, or time based orientation. Photographs taken from different perspectives do not lessen the value of the subject, but the photographer may or may not gain insights from what is revealed from the various angles. Thus it does not matter what system an astrologer chooses to use, as long as they are comfortable with it and understand why they use it.
Bibliography
Sasportas, Howard The Twelve Houses: An introduction to the houses in astrological interpretation, Aquarian Press, 1985, p.378
Sasportas, p. 381
Munkasey, Michael P. An Astrological House Formulary, NCGR Journal: Winter 1988-89; pp. 37-45
Sasportas, p. 380
Houlding, Deborah in an article found at www.skyscript.co.uk/temples/9.html
Sasportas, p. 380
Brau, Jean-Louis, Weaver, Helen, and Edmands, Allan Larousse Encyclopedia of Astrology, Plume books, 1982
