Talk:House (astrology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAstrology B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I originally named this article astrological houses for consistency with astrological aspects and astrological sign. Mkweise reverted it to houses (astrological). I am not sure what best Wiki policy is here, but perhaps as long as the links and redirects are in place it doesn't matter. Shantavira 12:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The rule is for article titles to be in the singular form (please keep that in mind when creating future articles.) I could have moved astrological houses to astrological house, but chose house (astrology) instead because (as far as I've seen) they're called just houses in astrology. Mkweise 19:36, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Natural rulership"[edit]

So, I put my references to Alan Leo back in the natural rulership part of the article. I see no reason to take them out and because it is important to note that this planet=sign=house association only dates back to the early 20th century because it shows where and why there was a divergence on this issue in the tradition. Also, I said that this assignment is "sometimes" called natural rulership, and the other is "sometimes" called accidental rulership because there is no widespread consensus on these terms and it appears to me that different authors use different names, if they even make the distinction at all. I think that it is more important to present an objective overview of the established parts of the modern and ancient traditions, and not adhere to any one authors specific views unless they have indeed become mainstream. Anyone have issues with this? --Chris Brennan 15:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

===Ah - chris - you've been here...I just edited in a paragraph about the Thema Mundi, noting that in the key chart, Cancer is in the ascendant. For those experimenting with this, here is an article that may help.

Note, planets do not inherently rule houses; they rule signs. That is what the house cusps are for; the planet that rules a house is variable, based on the sign on the house cusp. But the thema mundi points to an affinity between planets and houses, one which may seem unfamiliar at first but if you give it a chance, it makes sense. It starts with Cancer - 1st; Sun = 2nd and so on. Please see article above for additional information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-- eric francis, planetwaves —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Accidental rulership"[edit]

More neutrality would be to write "seems that Allan Leo was the man who popularized concept of natural rulership more widely". Who and when discovered and/or proposed this technique for the first time, it is impossible to say. And anyway, when you insist with accidental rulership, most of the time you end up with redundant rulership - mean the same planet rules both the house and sign, example: Mars in seven house in Leo - both its' rulers are Leo. 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. I don't think that it is impossible to say with certainty that Alan Leo first started this trend because there is no evidence that any other authors either prior to or contemporary with Leo said anything about this. Now, if someone was able to prove that someone prior to Leo was explicitly doing this, then surely we would change this article to say that Leo merely popularized it, but the current research does not support this position. I should probably provide a quote to prove that this isn't just my POV... Here is one from the historian Nick Campion's book on the history of astrology titled Astrology, History and Apocalypse
"He [Leo] also simplified the relationship between the signs and houses, generating the now familiar idea that the first house corresponds to Aries, the second house with Taurus, and so on." Campion, Pg. 78.
As for your other comment about "redendant rulership", I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I don't understand this example that you use with Mars and Leo. Are you saying that if Mars is in Leo, in the 7th house, that it would be ruled by the Sun and this would somehow be redundant? --Chris Brennan 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First example: Mars is in Leo. Cusp of seventh house is in Leo. Mars is in seventh house. Both the rulers of Mars (by house and by sign) are the Sun, although the planet sign is fifth and the planet house is seventh.
Second example: Mars is in Leo. Cusp of 8th house is in Leo. Mars is in 8th house. Both the rulers of Mars are the Sun, although the planet sign is fifth and the planet house is eight this time.
But 'Mars in Leo in 7th' and 'Mars in Leo in 8th' differs in their meanings and worse - differ in effect in native's life. But in 'accidental rulership' there is no difference between those two positions of Mars. Actually - between all tvelve positions of Mars in houses for given sign. So houses create no new information when you go to rulership. What for then use house rulers at all? It's redundancy - when you get it, you eliminate it.
In 'natural rulership' you have two rulers: Sun and Venus for first and Sun and Pluto for second and they differ as they do differ astro-logically.
So when it comes what planet rulers the house, it make some sense, but when you try to extend this house rulership to planets contained in this house, it's then a nonsense. 15:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't see the issue here. If mars is in the 7th house and Leo is on the cusp of the 7th, then the Sun rules the 7th house and its position in the chart will tell you about the persons' relationships and marriages, while Mars will also give you some information about the person's relationships, but in a different way depending on which house it rules. It wouldn't be the same if you moved to the 8th house positions because then the focus would be on death, and the house that Mars ruled would be different. That isn't redundancy, and this is the way that every tradition of horoscopic astrology has used the houses for 2,000 years now. This sign=planet=house thing is such a recent idea and there are a lot of people who don't even agree with it because it make the system too simplistic. Chris Brennan 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So we agree that Mars in Leo in 7 and Mars in Leo in 8 are different ;) Nice. And we also agree that in first position he is related with things ruled by Venus (as supplement to Sun), and in second position with things ruled by Pluto (as supplement to Sun). Nice. ;) And yet you claim that while it was practiced by 2000 years by now, Alan Leo has invented it in 19th/20th century. Is it not quite contradictory? And it's not nice at all. 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because one of the significations of the 7th house is marriage doesn't mean that Venus always rules that house or is the "natural ruler". The 7th house also signifies other things such as enemies, death, opponents, etc. Where is Venus there? And as far as Pluto goes, even if one of his significations is death, that still doesn't mean that he always rules the 8th house. Saturn and Mars also signify death- why not assign them to the 8th? My issue with this is that it is an overextension of this concept, or it makes more of a connection than there needs to be. Sure, we could say that there are similarities between some of Venus' significations and one of the significations of the 7th house, but to say that Venus always rules that house defeats the original purpose of rulership. It is a completely different thing to say that there is a similarity between two things, versus saying that a planet rules something. My issue is that no one prior to Alan Leo would have said that there is any such thing as "natural rulership", and actually, I don't even think that Alan Leo would have said that. I think that Alan Oken was one of the first people to start using this term "Natural rulership", and he has only been writing for the past 30 years or so. Is it his book Rulers of the Horoscope that you are getting this term from? --Chris Brennan 18:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quote: "Just because one of the significations of the 7th house is marriage doesn't mean that Venus always rules that house or is the "natural ruler". The 7th house also signifies other things such as enemies, death, opponents, etc. Where is Venus there? "
Seems you have not yet seen female lover after having sex who do not wish to have sex with the same lover any more :) Once you've seen it, you understand very well what war of Venus means compared to war of Mars. 08:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And more - the concept of something that is similar is ruled (or not) by a planet, it's the same thing as with rulerships over signs. You use them although they are as vague and poor fitting as 'natural' rulerships are over houses. Only with houses there is still more uncertainty, since on average roughly 20-30% planets in house are in wrong house that's it (unless either you 'believe' or 'know' that you are using 'correct' house system and you know precise time of birth without doubt). 09:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zip Dobyn's Number System[edit]

Painting w/ a very broad, but initially handy expedient system, Zipporah Dobyn's used this system connecting the keywords of House = Zodiac Sign = "natural planetary ruler":

1 - Aries - Mars / 2 - Taurus - Persephone (Transpluto) / 3 - Gemini - Mercury / 4 - Cancer - Moon / 5 - Leo - Sun / 6 - Virgo - Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, Juno / 7 - Libra - Venus / 8 - Scorpio - Pluto / 9 - Sagittarius - Jupiter / 10 - Capricorn - Saturn / 11 - Aquarius - Uranus / 12 - Pisces - Neptune.

I'm annoyed with the lumping together of the distinct keywords for the 1st house, Aries, and Mars; but when your doing 2-3 chart readings per hour at the fundraising psychic fair of your favorite spiritualist church or at a Scripps Childrens Hospital fundraising fair, Zip's broad "number system" does have it's benefits. Andrew Homer 22:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Searches on common misspellings of "succeed" encountered this spelling, which I assume to be correct in the context of astrology as it is in some calculus entries. I am therefore leaving the spelling in place as-is, and entering this comment as a note to self and any others who may embark on a similar search & correct mission. Longshot14 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I put the houses in individual headings in the hopes that the house meanings would be expanded upon and so a specific house could be linked to from another article through an anchor in the URL. It seems, though, that the layout now is rather clunky. Does anyone have any good ideas on how to solve this problem? Samuella 23:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken out the sub-headings for individual houses and put them in a list instead. I think the page layout is much less confusing this way.Sam 22:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(moved from the main article)

I know of NO modern Astrologers who assign NO planetary "rulers" to a Zodiac Sign. Cutting edge Astrologers I've known assign Persephone (Transpluto to the German Astrologers) as the "ruler" of Taurus (Joyce Wehrman, Valerie Vaughn) and the 1st 4 discovered asteroids (Ceres, Pallas Athene, Juno & Vesta) as the "ruler" of Virgo (Zip Dobyns, Lois Rodden). Thus, leaving Mercury to Gemini and Venus to Libra. Andrew Homer 22:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before discovery of "2003 UB313" (Proserpina) there were astrologers who hasn't used this fictious body you mention and they opted out for no ruler. Venus work exceedingly poorly sometimes (mean most of the time that's it :( ) as ruler of Taurus, but "2003 UB313" seems to make good fit. With Virgo there are at least three main asteroids - Ceres Pallas Vesta. And perhaps the fourth biggest - Hygiea - could make it in. But any one of them taken separately seems to work weaker than casual planet do (up to and including Pluto). So as using all four of them when they are in different signs can sometimes makes a lot of mess so there are cases where it is easer not use any - that's why no ruler used for Virgo. But very seldomly indeed. 11:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The largest asteroids are: 1- Sedna, 2- Quaoar, 3- Ixion, 4- Varuna, 5- Ceres, 6- 2000 WR 106, 7- 1996 TO 66, 8- 2000 EB 173, 9- 1999 TC 36, 10- 1995 SM 55, 11- Chaos, 12- Pallas Athena, 13- Vesta, 14- Hygeia, 15- Interamnia, 16- Davida. - See http://www.AndrewHomer.Com/Astro_Asteroids.html - Andrew Homer 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mix inner belt (between Mars and Jupiter) with outer belt outside Neptune that could be divided further into so called Kuiper belt and scattered bodies. I've encountered view that Virgo is ruled by inner belt so far. Also sizes for outer belt and scattered bodies are usually known less precisely than for inner belt. For instance for Sedna we know only that it is sized somewhere between 250 km (lower limit by 100% albedo) and 1600 km (Spitzer sensibility limit at it's current distance). Preliminary estimates for 2003 UB313 were between 2300 km and 15000 km. After measurment by Spitzer it shrinked to 2300 km - 3200 km. After measurement by Hubble it settled as 2400 +- 100km. So as discovery of Pluto, Quouar, Varuna, Ixion, 2003 UB313, 2003 EL61 and many other objects in the region indicate there are two significant laws about their properties: 1. The bigger the body the bigger the albedo. 2. The farther the body from the sun the bigger the albedo. 14:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Twelve Houses?[edit]

I've been practicing astrology for a good while now. Maybe I haven't found the right sources, or maybe I've missed something obvious, but I haven't so far been able to find out WHY the zodiac is divided into TWELVE signs and why the day is divided into TWELVE houses. What is the special significance of twelve? Does anyone know? Is there any specific reason for it? Or is it basically arbitrary - or even just lost in the mists of time?? Punanimal 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

60 was a sacred number to the Babylonians, so we have time (hours, months, minutes, etc...) roughly divisible by related numbers 5 x 12, etc... Markp93 (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, someone is flaunting that they just started classes in Astronomy 101. This article is about "chart domification" otherwise using a "table of houses", ie, Equal house, Koch, Placidus, Poyrphry, Regiomontanus, Topocentric, etc. So, references to star maps, as adorable as that may be, don't belong here. Andrew Homer 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Writing changes[edit]

I've removed the section specifying meanings for the houses. It violated copyright (taken almost verbatim from [1]) and was poorly written anyway. Also removed "Further house interpretations" because it was so unclear as to be useless; I'd prefer to have clarified it but I honestly don't know what the author intended it to mean. (Looks like possible OR, too.) On the equal house system breaking up in high latitudes: that's nonsense, the equal house system is notable as one of the few that doesn't. On purported history of house systems: I have for the most part left the factual claims intact, changing only the writing and removing a little bit of POV, but it is unsourced and (especially given the general unreliability of internal history in these kinds of traditions) it needs sources. On the topocentric system: removed something that looked like an attempt to describe the technical details, but unclear enough to be confusing. Since there's a reference to an explanation, I think it's better to lean on that. Deleted rulerships of signs; this topic is not relevant to houses except in that some people equate houses with signs (as explained in the article). Deleted link to Khaldea; looks like advertising, and has nothing to do with houses. Tempted to delete both the other two external links, too, because they are about research astrology and not about houses in particular; but I left them, because houses are a significant topic for research astrology. 00:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to equal house system, it is generally considered in Germany, Poland and Sweden to deliver wrong results in these latitudes and not used. So if it fail even at these modest latitudes, why should it *not fail* after the arctic circle? This 'falling up' was reason that led to search for other house systems. But the english term "break up" is meant here only "to be computable beyond polar circles" and do not deliver the meaning if these cusps are right or wrong, so for the change I concur. As of the house systems already described on this page, quite a few od them do not break too, so it is not the sole property of this house system. This adjective "break-up" comes from Britain, where many astrologers endorse equal house system, and they use this 'argument' to (wrongly) scare up people into using it... and it works sometimes, especially with younger female astrologers. GrzegorzWu 10:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Topocentric is just different name for Placidus - only authors used "quick and dirty" trick that allowed them to speed up hand calculations, at the cost of overall error less than 1 degree (1/4 at most at 50 degree of latitude). GrzegorzWu 10:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

NCGR few years back has online well researched article on house systems by Michael Munkasey, but it is no longer available online on their site. So I think the link can be removed. GrzegorzWu 11:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Porphyry - Antochius vs. Valens[edit]

Rob Hand and Rob Schmidt in their works pointed to the first source who desrcibed system later attributed to 'Porphyry' as Antochius of Athens (and passages from his work were later copied by Porphyry). Hand also points to Vettius Valens as the first who described what we call now as 'Equal House System'. To Chris: this revert does not mean I'm against your changes, just wiki rules are to source your changes when conflicting versions appear, like newer text where author (Rob Hand) changes his mind or someone else writes critical article where he/she put facts against thesis written by previous author. "Whole houses - the oldest house system" by Rob Hand where he put this thesis is now 7 years old, the progress can be quite rapid, and more, as he pointed out, the survived versions of many texts are sometimes quite unclear. GrzegorzWu 08:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't act like you are just following wikipedia policy here. You undid ever single change that I made to the article simply because you are pushing your own POV. Some of my edits are actually cited with actual sources, whereas none of your assertions are. If you want to argue about certain things that Hand and Schmidt are saying then show me specific page citations. Also, if you are going to cite Hand about certain issues regarding house division, then how are you going to ignore him when he says that whole sign houses were invented in the Hellenistic period??? Aside from that, the statement about Antiochus of Athens is no longer accurate because the text that Hand and Schmidt originally published as Antiochus of Athens actually comes from Rhetorius, who is from the 7th century, so in actuality Antiochus is not the first to mention the so-called "Porphyry" house system. Valens is. Don't simply 'undo' all of my edits like that, especially when you are not fully familiar with the texts that you are talking about. I have read Valens and Antiochus- you have not. --Chris Brennan 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange, Deb actually claims otherwise: "There’s no evidence that Ptolemy used a whole sign system and I am pretty sure that even Rob Hand would admit to that." see: 19:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And who described as first the "Equal house" system? GrzegorzWu 08:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GrzegorzWu, where are your references? If you can't provide any, then this revert war should stop right now. Samuel Grant 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The case is that here are conflicting views, and Chris Brennan as an advocate of Whole Sign House System tries to extend it's existence back in time, and hide different opinions. GrzegorzWu 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tetrabiblos by Claudius Ptolemaeus (translated by F.E.Robbins), Harvard University Press, London, England 1940
Astronomica by Marcus Manilius (translated by G.P.Gould), Harvard University Press, London, England 1977;
The problem with the Whole Sign house system is, that if someone wants to prove that it was used by certain author, and more importatly distincly exclusively at given time period, here he needs to show that it was started always only at ascedant sign and nowhere else. But the case with these two sources was it was started at different places. So it was no house system, but more broad technique of ecliptic analysis. The first time it was affixed exlusively to the ascendant and narrowed to only one possibility from broad subset of possibilities in vedic/hindu astrology. And this was point where this house system appeared. In the process most of it's richies was lost, and the earlier technique was degenerated into something which is useful much less, if at all. GrzegorzWu 08:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read some more books on Hellenistic astrology man. You are jumping to conclusions based solely on a lack of familiarity with the existing source texts. --Chris Brennan (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Chris[edit]

Chris, you are single-minded agressive advocate of the Whole Sign House system. I'm not. As different opinions here exist, please preserve them, and discuss it on the Talk page first. Wikipedia is not the place for imposing *the only correct point of view unilaterly* or making flame wars. GrzegorzWu (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC) PS: Chris: sleepless night or early waking in the morning? GrzegorzWu (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, you are the one who keeps reverting and rewriting my edits in order to push your own uninformed POV on the subject, even though you admit that you have only read a couple of books from the Hellenistic tradition. I don't know what your problem is, but a shallow reading of two books does not make you an expert of that tradition, and your attempts to make definitive statements about the history of astrology that you don't have any basis for is ridiculous. Astrologers like yourself who make these bogus historical arguments and then attempt to defend them to the death are the reason why I've totally lost interest in Wikipedia over the past couple of years, and its also the reason why most of the astrology articles here are in terrible shape. --Chris Brennan (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I already know that by your opinion the Greeks alone invented the whole astrology, and their predecessors Egyptians and Babylonians never lowered their necks to the subject of astrology and never turned their eyes to study the sky, and astrology never even visited Egypt and Alexandria, isn't it? I disagree with this viewpoint of yours. GrzegorzWu (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archeology sources disagree with you as well, as study of sky and interest in astronomical phenomena is as old as paintings in caves of prehistoric era. So the question what was first - houses or signs - is quite unresolvable now. Written sources from babylonia identified as oldest were describing rising and culminating bodies which would indicate houses were the first to be discovered. On the other side Robert Hand wrote in 90-ties an essay putting discovery of ecliptic by babylonians somehere about 700-400 bce, and division into twelve took place even later than this. Which makes ecliptic by about millenia younger than houses. But that doesn't mean that somewhen somewhere new sources wouldn't be discovered that would change this chronology again. This controversy does exist so the best way to go on wiki is to describes both point views. And this is diference - I'm eager to see both points described here since I'm not married to any of them. GrzegorzWu (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, my opinion is not that the 'Greeks' alone invented all of astrology. I have never said that, and do not endorse such an argument. That is ridiculous. Please do not misrepresent my position. The 12 sign zodiac was established by the 5th century BCE in the Mesopotamian tradition, right around the time that they developed natal astrology, with the first extant cuneiform birth charts dating to 410 BCE. The houses likely came from the Egyptian tradition though, due to their use of the decans, as they applied them to the diurnal rotation. The later tradition simply synthesized the Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions together. There is no current evidence that the houses existed in the Mesopotamian tradition prior to their appearance in the Hellenistic tradition though, and Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. --Chris Brennan (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GrzegorzWu, read this book: [2] --Chris Brennan (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
p. 90: "The first variation of the Sign-House system departed from the neat logic of that system. It consisted of measuring 30 deg arcs of zodiacal longitude from the ASC degree. This is what we call the Equal House system. It is perhaps important to point out that Ptolemy specified the use of the Equal House method of house division, or rather a slight variation of it - he put the cusp of the first house 5 deg above the ASC degree and said that the remainder of the house extended for 25 deg below the ASC degree, with the other houses at 30 deg intervals. It was probably the system most in vogue in the second century or at least the one that seemed most logical to him."
p. 91: "Celestial houses could be counted from any point in the zodiac. [...] This is properly called the technique of "derived houses". It is a fundamental technique of horoscopic astrology, but one that much later became embroiled in cotroversy because it was mistakenly thought to be a technique pecular only to horary astrology."
The source you mention also agrees that Whole Sign was not the first since "that system" was no houses at all. It also do not mentions which were these natural phenomena that started astrology in Babylon. The other book ""Mandala życia. Astrologia - mity i rzeczywistość." , dr R. Prinke, dr L. Weres, Poznan 1982, Poland, describes them as planets rising/setting and being on the culmination. GrzegorzWu (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try actually reading the book Gregorz. Pg. 13: "To these elements the inventors added the fundamental horoscopic concept of the celestial houses - originally conceived as a simple sequence of signs beginning with the rising sign..." Pg. 15: "It is evident that the earliest astrologers were content to list the sign positions of the planets and the ascending sign. With this information it was easy to visualize the house placements of the planets, so a chart was actually unnecessary. Most likely the use of a chart only became customary when astrologers had abandoned the simple Sign-House system of house division and adopted one of the later systems that divided the houses irregularly." Footnote 17 on page 15: "This [Sign-House system]is my own name for the original system of horoscopic houses. See my paper "Ancient House Division" in the AFA Journal of Research 1, no. 1 (1982):19-28." On page 5 in Holden's chapter on Babylonian astrology he points out that in their tradition "There is no trace of rising sign, midheaven, or celestial houses." --Chris Brennan (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the difference between american and european (at least french) astrological version of horoscopic astrology. The american literature concentrates on history of natal astrology and describes the version that zodiac was conceived first, and houses were eventually added much later. And these sources contradicting this view "signs then houses", given elsewhere, here were skipped by Holden. Astronomical phenomena (planets) are visible first in relation to horizon and later (eventually with simple devices) to local meridian, but to find ecliptic you need to collect and process some volume of observations. The houses are also dependant on exact time of birth. Only small ruling class could have "court" astrologer who noted which star rised at the moment of importance to ruler and chaplains. Any form of mass market astrology first loses ascendant and houses, like nowadays "newspaper sun-sign" astrology. But to at least partially overcome for this shortcoming it quite often gains some form of derivative techniques. "Whole-sign" houses in different flavours are used for those purpose in sun-sign astrology or simply "no-time-of-birth" charts as often today as they were in hellenistic astrology. I learned about them a lot when I started studying astrology in early 2000-s. I still recall drawing 12 charts starting from 0 of consecutive signs and 10 charts started from every planet in the chart and where appropriate I use selected ones while doing chart interpretation today too. GrzegorzWu (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can send you Holden's original paper on house division that he references in his book if you want it. --Chris Brennan (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How it could be obtained? GrzegorzWu (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Send me your email address in a private message and I will email it to you. --Chris Brennan (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think the symbols for the signs ~ ♈︎ ♉︎ ♊︎ ♋︎ ♌︎ ♍︎ ♎︎ ♏︎ ♐︎ ♑︎ ♒︎ ♓︎ should be in the chart in the "The twelve houses" section, even if they won't show for some people.

Astrological symbols or glyphs are to astrology what arabic numerals are to mathematics, (or suit signs ♠♣♥♦ are to cards), I think they need to be included one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Every house system is also affiliated with a zodiac sign can be dependent on the rotational movement of Earth on its axis, "[edit]

This is not grammatical English. At the very least, a which is missing. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B45A:47C7:EA33:1B76 (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"which was first taught by Alan Leo in the early part of the 20th century"[edit]

I am not comfortable with the use of the verb teach in a sentence that has a con artist for a subject. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:B45A:47C7:EA33:1B76 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are not enough reliable sources to show that this subject meets our notability criteria. Most of the sources attached to this article seem to from unreliable fringe publishers. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been 3.5 months since this proposal was started. There is no objection and we have waited enough. I am proceeding with the merge. There is hardly anything from reliable source so a redirect will suffice. Venkat TL (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


[3] This has the right idea, the site is linkspam - but the old site was just the old name of the same site - also linkspam. I looked at the history. At first, there were no details about what astrologers believe about the houses. Then, there were details. Then, it had "citation needed". Then, it was cited to a linkspam site. Then, it was replaced by another one.

I think we need to go back to a much older version regarding that item. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]