INTRODUCTION
In this article
I want to discuss what is probably the most vexing problem
in astrology, and that is: How to tackle a horoscope,
especially a blind one, and to reach clear (not vague but specific)
results with a high percentage of probability.
The
problem is known under several names (“at present
our knowledge of astrology is comparable to knowing only words
of a language and not knowing how to choose them or to compose
sentences”, to paraphrase James Holden’s Word-problem,
or “one can interpret the parts of a horoscope in so
many different ways that one cannot choose”, Rob Hand’s
poly-interpretability problem, as I prefer to call it).
The
problem is even more complicated than it seems at first sight.
Not only don’t we know how to interpret a planet’s
position in a house, we even don’t know whether its influence
will make itself clear by the house position or by
the house it rules or by a house (if any) whose cusp is strongly
aspected by it or all of the above.
USE
OF ASTROLOGY HANDBOOK FOR CHART ANALYSIS
Most
astrologers in practice think they have a simple solution by
consulting
their favourite astrology handbook of that moment
for each planet’s position in sign and in house and trying
to render the found text in an acceptable way and the same for
each planetary aspect. This usually does not give any interesting
result at all. The reason is that this method implicitly assumes
that each horoscopic indication relates to one fixed interpretation
that can be rendered in for example, half a page of text.
Simple
pondering shows this is impossible. Each position of a planet
in a sign
takes some days or even several years and
one really can’t assume that this means any one born during
this period will experience the same facts and/or events in life.
House
positions do not help much either: true, they change every
two hours or so, but they are repeated every 24 hours. Therefore,
next day (and yesterday) you will most often find the same positions
and aspects in the same sign and house, with the moon as the
only exception. It takes days at least to see these indications
change.
Therefore, even if one writes a textbook with 144 descriptions
for each individual planet (12 signs multiplied by 12 houses)
this would not really help much. In fact, this number of 144
interpretations should be multiplied by 12 again, for each planet
can rule at least one of the twelve houses and cast aspects to
any cusp. Doing so however, we still would not have a reliable
textbook.
Usually,
if the horoscope of a well-know person is analysed, the astrologer
does not
have any problem in explaining every
fact that he/she knows about the native’s life: for every
desired fact he/she will easily find a fitting indication. But
here the problem is, it will not be difficult to find other horoscopes
with the same positions/aspects/midpoints that do not relate
to similar facts in life.
The reverse also holds well; in practice almost any aspect is
or can be used to explain any fact of life. And be honest: did
you never make the mistake of stating something right from a
wrong indication, for example from an aspect that on second thought
proved to be no aspect at all? Well, I did.
The analysis
can either be wrong or it is right. If it is right and not
vague or applicable to anyone (which is not the same!)
is it then true for anyone with this indication? If your answer
is, “But look how satisfied my clients are!”,
you should realize how satisfied people were with their physicians
at a time, some ages ago, when these physicians really knew
nothing. This is the sad history of phrenology that Dean likes
so much to
mock with. True, the late Hague astrologer Jan Gieles, who
taught me traditionalism, could sometimes give breathtaking
details
on a native’s past or future but he himself stated repeatedly
he was more of a clairvoyant. He also could not teach this
specific knowledge to his pupils (including me), no matter
how much
he tried to teach and his students tried to understand him.
The
number of possible readings is too large (poly-interpretability): what does my sun in Leo in nine mean? It can mean a teacher,
or a sport-hero, or a sex-tourist? You make the choice. The problem
is of course that in a horoscope all matters of life are spread
over no more than twelve fields.
We
all share the same experience: you have tried to explain
a radical or progressed
indication but you are completely wrong.
Then you hear what really happened and you yell “Of
course!” Out
of twenty possible interpretations you took #16 but the right
one proved to be #12. Looking backward you have the awesome
feeling that of course #12 was the most probable explanation
and you
should have seen so, what a pity. Yes, you were definitely
wrong but nevertheless (paradox) you are once more convinced
that
astrology is true. And although you are right, that doesn’t
mean that at present stage, astrology is practically applicable.
Even
the most extensive textbooks cannot give a reliable solution.
The best approach would seem to have a limited set of keywords
for each indication and to apply them differently according to
all indications as a whole. The only author I know that succeeded
more or less in doing so was Margaret Hone in her two superb
books. Although she is not a very popular author, I
think her books can be considered a splendid introduction to
astrology. After that, one should go further to advance in astrology,
but where? Good question. Certainly not by consulting one of
the many recipe books that are currently in the market and that
some astrologers cherish as their magic incantation books.
Another
way of escaping from this dilemma is the use of midpoints.
But they are even
stricter in their reading, and therefore even
less useful. (In one of the handbooks of the Hamburg School one
can read the serious advise: “collect all indications,
look for the applicable ones and throw away the other ones. ..”)
One reasonable way would seem to advise using only the planets
that are conjunct with or in aspect to the cusps, for they tend
to be more personal and outspoken. This may be true, but
a)
one day later, and at different times on the same day on
many other places of the world, the same aspects can re-occur
b) quite often an outspoken trait of the native is mirrored best
by a planet that is not in aspect to any cusp.
Nevertheless we will return to this later.
CONCEPT
There
is one more concept that should be discussed here: the
idea that the houses reflect the events in life and the signs
refelect the character.
Carter,
one other great astrologer of the 20th century, explicitly
warned against this misunderstanding (Carter, p 24, 81
and especially 92) but it did not really help. I think
most astrologers still
think this is true, mostly because they were told so by another
astrologer who took things for granted too easily instead
of checking them him/herself. As we will see, the basis
of this
article is the equivalency of signs and houses, and not any
difference between them.
By
now it will be clear why this idea of psychological signs
versus eventful houses is so popular: if one assumes
that there is a fixed meaning for each position of a planet in
a sign
or
in
a house. One faces the problem that not everyone that is born
at the same day meets the same events in life. So it seems one
had better relate these events to the influence of the houses,
that change every 2 hours and that for the same moment of time
are different for different places in the world (although the
same house-occupation that was here 2 hours ago now covers another
part of the globe). It is easier to ascribe character-traits
to the more fixed positions in the signs, since character-descriptions
usually are vaguer and therefore seem to be more applicable.
Needless to say, the very same astrologers that adhere to this
misunderstanding will easily state that a Plutonian influence
may be indicated by one of at least four indications:
a) Pluto on the ascendant,
b) the ruler of the eight house on the ascendant
c) the ruler of the ascendant in Scorpio,
d) the ruler of the ascendant in the eight house.
The
above is certainly true but of course it dispenses with any
supposed difference between signs and houses.
DYNAMIC
APPROACH
The
method we want to introduce in this article therefore does
not proceed
from
any fixed meaning of positions in signs and
houses and for aspects, but from a more dynamic approach,
with stress on rulerships and on occupations of both signs
and houses.
Which will however means that we will find out what field(s)
of life a constellation will probably have most the most influence.
I was
inspired
to use this method
by reading the 21st book of Morin’s Astrologia Gallica.
I will refer to this text by the page numbers of both Baldwin’s
and Lucy Little’s translations, separated by a comma.
In 2008 Baldwin’s translation was reprinted at the American
Federation of Astrologers (AFA), I will refer to this edition
by an equals sign : “Morin p.4=5, 8”, where 4 and
5 refer to both editions of Baldwin’s translation and
the 8 to Lucy Little’s Astrosynthesis.
PLANETS
IN FITTING SIGNS
For
Morin, essential for astrology is the difference between benefics
(Venus and Jupiter) and malefics (Mars and Saturn),
as well as the value of each planet in the signs. Each planet
in a fitting sign is principally favorable (though malefics
less than benefics) and in the opposite signs it is principally
unfavorable (though malefics more than benefics). Sun and moon
are benefics in their own signs, Leo and Cancer, and malefics
in the opposite signs, Aquarius and Capricorn. A benefic in a
peregrine sign stays a benefic, a malefic in a peregrine sign
stays a malefic. When a planet is not in its own sign, the position
of its ruling planet is important. A peregrine malefic conjunct
to a malefic in its detriment is also very bad.
Bad aspects from benefics in their own signs do not result
badly. Good aspects from malefics in non-fitting signs almost
invariably give bad results. However, bad aspects from malefics
in non-fitting signs are worse than from their own signs: rather
a square from Mars in Aries than from Libra!
As
a general rule, any conjunction between planets that rule opposite
signs
is unfavorable:
As
usual in this series of articles, I have Chiron as the ruler
of Libra.
The incompatibility of two planets can also be because of
their nature, for example Jupiter and Saturn, or Uranus with
Venus or Chiron.
The above table immediately confronts us with a nasty
problem: what to do with the new planets, discovered after Morin’s
time (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Chiron)? How should these
fit into the traditional system where sun and moon each govern
one sign and each planet two signs? For example, what planet
rules a house with Pisces on its cusp, Jupiter or Neptune?
Hone
(p. 34) wrote: the beginner is advised
to use Neptune as the main ruler of Pisces, and she was right.
But in further practice, one will see that the traditional rulerships
surprisingly often still apply too. In
many cases, both planets will give applicable information,
or one of them will be
more related to the nature of the house it
rules or one of them will be positioned in the house or in aspect
to its cusp. The problem is less cumbersome than most astrologers
suppose.
Principally classical rulers of signs are to be reckoned with
as much as the new rulers. One should always try to give preference
to the one that seems most corresponding to the nature of the
house involved. If Pisces is on the ninth cusp, especially with
Jupiter in the ninth house or aspecting this cusp, Neptune will
almost certainly be put aside for Jupiter as the ruler of nine
and vice versa.
Further,
in Morin’s
system, the sixth, eighth and twelfth houses are malefic, and
so are in most cases their ruling planets,
even Venus, especially if positioned in a non-fitting sign or
badly aspected. This I think is not true for the corresponding
signs Virgo, Scorpio and Pisces! (At least, this is one difference
between signs and houses I am happy to admit.)
Finally,
we will accept planetary aspects to the hoyse cusps not only
to the MC and the ascendant, but also to intermediate cusps,
and in the radix as well as in progressions. The radical
orbs should be taken a bit smaller than between planets but
as we
will see this gives unexpected results, especially when the aspect
is from the planet that actually rules the cusp or that is its
natural ruler (for example, sun to cusp five). The housing system
that we will use is Placidus, since at least for the techniques
discussed in this article gives excellent results.
EXAMPLE
OF THE PLANETS' VALUES IN THE SIGNS
As
an example of how far we can get merely by looking at the value
of the planets in the signs, we will now study the horoscope
of the unfortunate Dutch politician. Pim Fortuyn. He was quite
brutally murdered one week before the Dutch parliamentary elections
in 2002 (where he could
have easily win). For the
Dutch, this is the equivalent of the murder of Kennedy for the
Americans.
I
gathered the above horoscope three days before his death, and
I was immediately frightened: the first that stroke my eye
was
the
conjunction of Saturn in Leo (its detriment) with the MC, made
even worse because malefic Pluto, peregrine, also partakes in
this conjunction. The ruler of these points (MC, Saturn and Pluto)
is the sun, in its detriment in Aquarius and opposite to Mars,
also positioned in Leo. This was enough to predict a heavy fall
from a high position.
If one accepts transgressional aspects
there is even more to this: the sun, ruler of the MC etc. is
positioned at the end
of Aquarius (its detriment), and conjunct to Mercury, ruler of
eight, also in its detriment in the beginning of Pisces. This
is the only way, the only zodiacal position, where these two
planets can be conjunct and both in their detriment. So we see
a conjunction of the rulers of ten (career) and eight (death),
both in their detriment. And just look, both are in a square
to the cusp of the eighth house ruled by Mercury.
In
the eighth house we see the moon (public) and Uranus (suddenness)
in Gemini;
indications of a sudden public death. The murder took
place on the street in the Hilversum “Mediapark” (center
of journalism, tv, etcetera) which is typically Gemini too.
Also note the position of Neptune, natural ruler of twelve
(the traditional secret enemies) on the cusp of twelve,
semi-square
to Mars (violence) and also opposite to its ruler Venus in
its destruction in Aries. Yes, astrology can be frightening. Once
more we see that a planet is heavily afflicted when in opposition
to its ruler: Mars to the sun, Neptune to Venus. The opposition
in itself is no worse aspect than the square, but in such cases
the ruler will by definition always be in its detriment too,
and that makes things worse.
CUSPRULERS
I
now introduce the idea of cusprulers,
not to be confused with houserulers. A cuspruler of
a house is a planet
that actually is positioned on the house cusp or whose
degree of exaltation is on this cusp. Aspects between
cusprulers
are very important. In my own horoscope:
Venus
is the exaltation ruler (cuspruler by exaltation)
of five and Jupiter of nine, they are
in a trine and therefore this is one indication why
I got married to a girl from a foreign country. My
Jupiter also is in sesquiquadrate to Mars in its detriment,
cuspruler of twelve and regular ruler of six. This
is an indication that I was probably infected abroad,
on a foreign summercourse (Jupiter!) in Moscow in 1975,
with the most important illness of my life, a rather
malevolent and long lasting Pfeiffer.
One might say that my trine of Venus, natural ruler
of seven, to Jupiter, natural ruler of nine, is in
itself already a clear indication for a marriage to
a foreigner but this aspect of course lasted for days,
and it needed to be stressed, personalised, by cusp-positions
in order to become valuable.
Slightly
less important I suppose is the position of a house-ruler
in the house it rules, not conjunct
to its cusp (then it would be its cuspruler), for
example, Uranus in Marie Antoinette’s horoscope
:
Here we see Uranus, ruler of ten, in the tenth house, although
not in its own sign. It is in a semi-square to Saturn in its
own sign in eight so the end of a prominent position, a fall,
through revolution and a violent death was indicated.
There
is the age-old problem of what planet has the strongest
influence on a house: its ruler, or a planet that is positioned
in it? I do think we should discern a planet on a cusp from a
planet just somewhere else in the house and I suggest the following
hierarchy:
- cusp-rulers (planet on the cusp)
- house-in-house rulers (ruler of a house in the house, not on
the cusp but still in its own sign)
- peregrine house-in-house rulers ( ruler in the house but not
in its own sign, see Marie-Antoinette's chart above)
- house-rulers in other houses
- planets in aspect to the cusp
- planets further in the house
ANTISCIONAL
POINTS
The
last indications I want to mention are traditional: the antiscional
points,
already mentioned by Ptolemy. They used to be neglected in
modern astrology since they are difficult to find by simple
visual inspection, but thanks to the arrival of computers
they are becoming increasingly popular now. Two points are
said to be antiscional if they are on different sides from
0 Cancer but their distances to 0 Cancer are the same. For
example 0 Gemini and 0 Leo, both points being 30 degrees
from 0 Cancer. This is considered to act like a conjunction,
both in the radix and in progressions. Antiscions between
a planet and a cusp can be very effective too.
In the horoscope of Richard Nixon we see a special but
not uncommon case, that mostly goes unnoticed:
Planets
at the end of Gemini are conjunct to planets at the beginning
of Cancer both regularly and by antiscions,
just like planets at the end of Sagittarius and the beginning
of Capricorn. This explains why in this horoscope the stellium
formed by Mercury, Mars and Jupiter proved to be so sensitive
to the opposition of Pluto.
(How
much better his career would have ended if only Mars and
Jupiter had
occupied each other’s positions, both
would have been excellently placed!)
THE MORINIC-SYNTHETIC METHOD
Morin
convincingly mocks with the idea that a planet’s position
in a sign has the same meaning for anyone born during that
period (Morin, p. 11 = 17,15). Holden (p. 165) states that
Morin entirely rejected any fixed meaning of planets (f.e.
the moon for the mother) and used only rulerships and placements
in houses where a planet actually happens to be positioned,
but that nevertheless he maintained something called analogies.
And indeed, Morin, p. 14=21,19) states:
“And so,
careful attention should be paid to the planets’ location by
house, or their house-rulerships, and to whether they aspect
favourably or unfavourably a planet having an analogy with
the meanings of these houses, and what the celestial state
and determination of this other planet may in turn be. From
all this a very accurate prognostication can be made, for
herein lie the secrets of astrology”.
For
the case of clarity and since it is such an important statement,
I cite here Lucy Little’s translation aS well:
“One
must therefore examine with the greatest care whether the
planets which occupy a house or who are rulers there are
in favourable or unfavourable configuration with the planet
whose significance by analogy [i.e. by nature, WvD] is the
same as that of the house: then one must consider the zodiacal
state of this latter planet and its specific determination
of the chart”.
Most
important lines but what do they actually mean? My interpretation
is: the moon, for example has a permanent
general analogy to the affairs of its sign Cancer and of
the fourth house, and a casual specific one to the affairs
of the house it happens to rule or where it happens to be
positioned. Let’s suppose you have the ruler of the
fourth house in any sign in aspect to the moon in any sign.
This means you have the moon’s zodiacal position
in common with anyone born at about the same time as you,
anywhere in the world. But the ruler of the fourth house
will vary, depending on time and place, for it is a mundane
position. So we have an aspect between a zodiacal and
a mundane indication, a general and a particular one, which
aspect will pertain to your fourth house-affairs, in this
case the particular ruler of a house in aspect to the general
ruler of the corresponding sign, that in my view gives most
valuable information.
We may even extend this rule: when a planet is positioned
in a house and it is in aspect to another planet in the corresponding
sign (f.e. a planet in four in aspect to a planet in Cancer),
this aspect will be very important in the affairs ruled by
this house. The same with a housecusp in aspect to the natural
or actual ruler of the house.
DEFINING
OUR THESIS
Generally
speaking, in the method proposed in this article, we try
to find a relation between a general
zodiacal indication in the signs and a similar particular
mundane indication in the houses. My proposal is to
realize this by looking for a link between a house
and its corresponding sign, by whatever means (usually
an aspect between two planets or between a planet and
a cusp). An example from my own
horoscope:
Here
we see the lunar node in the fifth house, in a trine to the
sun in Leo, the fifth sign, in nine. Since
the Sun and Leo and the node and the fifth house all have influence
on romantic relationships, this would be one more indication
for foreign love-affairs (ninth house). The same indication is
given by Neptune, actual ruler of the fifth house, in quintile
to the sun in nine, natural ruler of the fifth sign.
The
essence of this article: the importance of such
house-sign relations. In such a case the effect of the aspect
is stimulated in the same direction (a kind of the ayes have
it) by both the sign and the house. There are many ways of having
such a house-sign relation, such as (I will now take the fifth
house/sign as an example):
# 1 : with one planet :
- A : actual or exaltation ruler of house 5 positioned in sign
5, Leo
- B : actual, natural or exaltation ruler of 5 in aspect to cusp
5, from whatever sign
- C : any planet in sign 5, Leo, in aspect to cusp 5
- D : B and C combined, ruler of 5 in Leo in aspect to cusp 5.
# 2 : with two planets :
- A : ruler of sign 5, the sun, in aspect to actual ruler of
house 5
- B : planet in sign 5, Leo, in aspect to planet in house 5
- C : planet in sign 5, Leo, in aspect to actual ruler or exaltation
ruler of house 5
- D : planet in house 5 in aspect to the ruler of sign 5, the
sun
# 3 : with three planets (difficult to find but often surprisingly
informative) :
- A : any planet or cusp in aspect to the ruler of house 5 and
to the ruler of sign 5, the sun
- B : any planet or cusp in aspect to a planet in house 5 and
to a planet in sign 5, Leo
Notes:
- The above list is not meant to be exhaustive. Some cases are intuitively
clear but difficult to be stated as a simple rule, for example:
I have 14 Cancer, exaltation of Jupiter, on cusp nine
and the Moon, regular ruler of nine, is in Sagittarius, the ninth
sign, ruled by Jupiter. This stresses the “nineness” of
my Moon-Jupiter combination.
- Instead
of aspects, one can read conjunctions with degrees of exaltation,
antiscions,
etc.
-
Often a house-sign relation is of more types than one, f.e.
rule 3A is a combination of rules 1A and 2A and
C (I will give
an example further on in this article).
-
Two planets can have more than one house-sign relationship
in
one horoscope,
especially if you accept exaltation-rulers
and both classical and new rulers of signs. And the other
way round, any single house-sign relation (f.e. fifth house – Leo)
in one horoscope can be expressed by different combinations
of two planets. These different planetary combinations then
will
give complementing, not contradictory, information on the
field involved. Thus the system allows for different readings
for the
same field of life, which can give different results for
different phases of life – something usually not
found in the fixed usual textbook readings.
POSSIBLE
OBJECTIONS REFUTED
Having
come so far, even the most benevolent reader might remark: “But
Mr. Van Dam, this method is exactly what you accuse other astrologers
of. You will always find a relationship between any two
planets or cusps and you will always find material to read in
a horoscope whatever you want to find. The more so since you
not only use aspects but also degrees of exaltation, mundane
positions, etc.”
But
this would be completely wrong. First, I don’t attach
fixed meanings to aspects and for that reason also not to any
house-sign relationship. So I cannot strive towards any desired
concrete fixed meaning just by checking as many house-sign relationships
as I need to finally reach the desired significance. If we don’t
just look which two planets form an aspect but also look what
value they have (in what signs they are positioned) and which
house-sign relationship they have, we get far more different
possibilities for that one aspect. Yet, they are far less poly-interpretable
because of their strict house-sign-relationships. Remember that
in such a relationship the house involved will always be the
same as the sign, which means that you probably know in what
field of life the indication or event will happen. Here lies
the power of the system.
Second,
one should always remember Robert de Luce’s Golden
Rule of Interpretation: one indication is a possibility,
two are a probability and one needs three for reliability. In the
example above, we found until now only two indications for foreign
love affairs.
This is solved by the third rule: Of all indications found,
at least one should be individual, personal, in time and place.
It seems that in practice, for one reason or another, this often
is a conjunction to a mundane planet or cusp. In my horoscope,
0 Aries is positioned in the beginning of the fifth house and
my mundane ascendant proves to be 3.32 Leo, almost exactly conjunct
to the sun in 2.58 Leo in nine. So my mundane ascendant activates
the double house-sign indication discussed above, and makes it
personal. It also suggests the nature of these relationships,
marriage, since the ascendant-descendant axis relates to marriage.
Suppose the individual point on my sun in Leo in nine had not
been the ascendant-descendant axis, but the cusp of the second
house. Then an acceptable interpretation would have been: financial
gain (cusp 2) by gambling or speculation (five) abroad (nine).
So the nature of all points involved should always be reckoned
with too. This example shows once more why you cannot superimpose
any desired significance to any house-sign relation you find,
the meaning of the individualizing cusp or mundane planet should
be fully reckoned with.
So we see that indeed, a planetary constellation that is stressed
by a cusp is more likely to show its effect. Only as said, I
have got the impression it will often be a mundane cusp or planet
that has the same properties and speed as a regular cusp, albeit
backwards in the zodiac in stead of forward.
Important
note: I have often found not the actual zodiacal or mundane
cusp applicable in interpretation but the opposite one. The more
so
if this meaning fits better with the other indications and apparently
even more so if it’s a malefic on a house cusp. A malefic
influence I think by nature is more inclined to exert its influence
through opposition than a benefic. I feel allowed to do so since
Morin himself in his interpretation often reckoned with the opposite
house.
There
are even more indications for foreign love-affairs in my horoscope:
the sun
in nine is in sesquiquadrate to Chiron
(ruler of Libra, as I suggest) in the ninth sign, and Chiron’s
mundane longitude is at 3 Taurus, the moon’s exaltation.
The moon rules my ninth house, so Chiron-like affairs (love,
relationships) are indicated by the sun and the moon, masculine
and feminine principles par excellence. Both are related to the
ninth house, meeting each other on Chiron and the more so since
right
on Chiron we also see antiscional cusp three. This is to be understood
as another indication of a foreign wife, since the significance
of this antiscional axis three in Sagittarius, the ninth sign,
is almost automatically drawn towards its opposite, cusp nine:
foreign affairs.
So
much for the positive side of my horoscope. But now for something
completely different:
the undeniable negative and disharmonic
influence, until about my eighteenth year, of my grandparents
by mother’s side on our domestic life. Jan Gieles taught
me that grandparents are reflected by the twelfth house. Here
we find malevolent Mars in Libra (most unfitting quarrelsome
position) on the cusp, in sesquiquadrate to Jupiter in the fourth
house (domestic life). Mars and cusp twelve also are in Saturn’s
degree of exaltation, indicating both stress and elder people.
This is a clear indication (first cluster), but could it be even
enforced by using the house-sign principle?
Most
certainly, if we only take into account that not only Mars
is in the twelfth house but Jupiter is in Pisces, and in the
twelfth sign, too. But there are more indications in my horoscope:
quarrelsome
Uranus, ruler of the fourth (parental, maternal) house, is positioned
in Cancer, the fourth sign, in conjunction with Venus (together
meaning domestic disharmony), and also in a nice transgressional
opposition to its ruler the Moon, that happens to be the natural
ruler of four (second cluster). And the cause for this disharmony
is clearly given by Mars throwing a tredecile to Venus and thus
linking both clusters.
This second cluster is the promised example of a combined house-sign
relation:
1A : ruler (Uranus) of a house (four) positioned in sign four,
Cancer
2A : ruler (Moon) of a sign (Cancer) in aspect (opposition) to
actual ruler of the corresponding house (Uranus)
2C : planet (Venus) in the fourth sign (Cancer) in aspect (conjunction)
to ruler of the fourth house (Uranus).
The
third indication might be a surprise: as we saw, the first
cluster, Mars and Jupiter, is centered on regular cusp twelve.
This makes the indication individual enough, but 0 Pisces is
in the beginning of the fourth house, giving a mundane twelfth
cusp of 4.50 Cancer, exactly conjunct to the second cluster,
Venus conjunct Uranus. We now not only have a double individual
indication but both indications are through cusp twelve, grandparents:
Mars, cusp-ruler of twelve, is conjunct to regular zodiacal cusp
twelve and Venus, classical ruler of twelve, to mundane cusp
twelve. In addition to the tredecile between these two planets
(a technical relationship), this connects the two clusters
by a
semantic relationship (twice cusp twelve) as well.
In
the house-sign system of interpretation we also reckon with
cusp-rulers. A
fine example is provided once more by Pim Fortuyn’s
horoscope: the cusp of the eight house is in the node’s
exaltation degree and the node is in semi-square to violent Pluto,
natural ruler of eight. Not a desirable configuration, and a
nice illustration of the rule that the ruler of a house (here
the exaltation ruler) in aspect to its natural ruler gives most
valuable information on this house.
Now we also understand the importance of what I wrote some pages
ago on the position of Neptune in this horoscope, natural ruler
of twelve (the traditional secret enemies) on the cusp of twelve,
semi-square to Mars (violence) and also opposite to its actual
ruler Venus that is in its destruction in Aries. Since Neptune
is the natural ruler of twelve and Venus the actual one, this
proves to be a typical house-sign relationship.
EXTENSION
OF LINKS
Some indications are stronger (more synthetic, repetitive) than
others. I gave as examples in my horoscope the trine from the
node in five to the sun in Leo. Actually, five and Leo in itself
would be a sufficient house-sign relation and any other intermediate
planet in stead of the sun (Mercury, Neptune) would do. But the
indication of course is stronger since the sun, natural ruler
of five/Leo is involved. The presence of another planet would
make necessary another interpretation.
Thus
we see that a sign-house relation based on an aspect between
two
planes
in corresponding house and sign can be intensified
by one of the planets being the natural ruler of the house and
sign (type #1, for example, my node in five trine to my sun in
Leo). The reversed also exists: when we have a sign-house
relation
created
by an aspect between the actual and the natural ruler of a house,
one of the two planets (or both) may be positioned in the sign
or house involved. In my quintile from Neptune, actual ruler
of five, to the sun, natural ruler of Leo, we need only the two
planets for a full sign-house relation. But the sign Leo is once
more involved by the sun having its position in it, making the
interpretation easier and more reliable ( type #2). Remember
that in the Mars-Jupiter cluster in my own horoscope Jupiter
is both classical ruler of and positioned in Pisces. In the same
way, the opposition of Neptune and Venus, natural and actual
rulers of twelve in Pim Fortuyn’s horoscope, mentioned
above, was positioned on his axis six – twelve, so in stead
of houses cusps also may give this helpful double information
if they enforce, link up with, an already existing house-sign
relation.
Type
#3 that may intensify a house-sign relation is when the two
planets
involved
not only are in an aspect to each other,
but are also in a mundane conjunction. Here too my node – sun
relation is a good example, for the node’s mundane longitude
is 4.53 Leo, conjunct to the radical sun in nine. This means
that the house-sign relation given by the trine between the sun
and the node is reinforced both by the sun being positioned in
Leo and by the node being in mundane conjunction to the sun.
Now we fully see why this house-sign relation worked out so clearly
in my life. We should always check for such additional indications,
they are most important.
THE
TWO KINDS OF INDICATIONS It
is I think impossible to state all possible kinds of house-sign
relations. But the following should be well noted:
There are a) purely technical relations (aspects, antiscions
and the mundane positions), and b) semantic ones: the interpretation
one can give for these aspects in view of their house-sign relations
and their possible reinforcements.
We may conclude that the traditional textbooks try to give a
fixed significance for the first ones as if they are the endpoints
for the analysis, while in fact the aspects only give rise to
house-sign relations, that should be dynamically interpreted,
in the light of the nature and the cosmical position of the two
planets involved.
One might compare this to a skeleton: true, it is essential
for a body but one cannot say much interesting from looking
at its
bones (the aspects) alone. Only when this skeleton (the zodiac
and the aspects) is clothed with muscles and skin (house-sign
relations) we can recognize the native. Because
of lack of space I will not dwell here upon other applications
of the
house-sign system (by using midpoints, Volguines “Encadrements”,
etc.), but there is one very important application that should
be discussed here: its use in progressions.
I
am a convinced user of primary directions as I developed and
published them
myself some thirty five years ago and have found
since then no reason for substantial adjustments, except for
a slight adjustment of the key of time . The system sometimes
is known abroad as “the Dutch system”, since some
Dutch astrologers are convinced of its value but wouldn’t
like you to know that it was developed by yours truly, Wim Van
Dam.
In
most cases the majority of indications found by these primary
directions are
simply interpreted by studying which houses are
ruled by the planets involved. But in some cases, in addition
to these applicable aspects, other ones are found unexplicable.
White noise? This would be acceptable only if we knew on beforehand
which indications are applicable and which ones are not. But
we don’t.
It
seems the house-sign principle may be helpful here too. Let
me take as an example how the birth of our daughter Lily, January
10, 1995, was reflected in my horoscope. I discussed this event
in the article on degrees of exaltation and showed that at least
one otherwise unexplicable indication becomes clear by using
these degrees. There were even more indications that are
explained only by using house-sign relations (primary positions
for the date are drawn in blue, secondaries in blue).
As I stated in the article, the
most applicable indication was given by primary cusp 5 in 3 Taurus,
square to the sun in Leo. Cusp five and Leo and the sun are clear
indications for children but now we understand it was in fact
a house-sign relation realized by cusps.
More
troublesome for interpretation are at first sight:
Primary
Jupiter trine to Pluto: A mystery, until you realise
that primary Jupiter is the traditional ruler of five through
Pisces and its primary position is in the radical fifth house,
whilst radical Pluto is in Leo, the fifth sign. Easy like taking
candy from a baby.
Primary
Venus conjunct to Pluto: realise that Venus is
radical exaltation-ruler of five and radical Pluto is in Leo.
Primary
Jupiter tredecile (108 degrees) to the moon: As
I stated above, my primary cusp 5 was in 3 Taurus. This
happens to be
the exaltation-degree of the moon, so the moon was cuspruler
of five for that year, and primary Jupiter was in the fifth
house. This means that both radical positions on degrees
of exaltation
and primary ones are important in the delineation of progressions. In
case you don’t
like primaries, the secondary ones may be used as illustrations
of the house-sign-principle too: the
secondary sun (children) was in a sextile to Venus, exaltation
ruler of the radical fifth house, and secondary Venus was in
a trine to the radical moon (the moon being exaltation ruler
of fifth that year).
Very,
very interesting: one of these indications was, as said, primary
Venus conjunct
to radical Pluto. At the time that secondary
Venus had been conjunct to the same radical Pluto in 1986, I
got engaged to my later wife. This too is a typical fifth house
matter,
and it is a good illustration that even if you figure out the
right house, you are not sure of the right interpretation. At
least if you don’t take into account the other indications
for that year.
In
solar revolutions too we can use the house-sign method. Let
us take as an example
Pim Fortuyn’s solar revolution for
the fatal year 2002, calculated for Hilversum, the Netherlands.
In
addition to some traditional methods, easily interpretable
indications
like solar ascendant conjunct to radical
cusp eight, we also see the moon, ruler of solar cusp eight,
in sesquiquadrate to Pluto, natural ruler of eight. This is of
course a repetition of radical node, cuspruler of eight through
exaltation, semi-square to Pluto. Another repetition is the position
of antiscional node conjunct cusp eight, remember the node’s
degree of exaltation being on cusp eight in the radix.
The
moon in its own degree of exaltation probably stresses the
house it rules (eight), but how should we interpret Jupiter
in the sign of its exaltation on cusp eight? At first sight most
unapplicable for the victim of a murder but I suppose this is
an indication that through this murder, Pim acquired eternal
fame in the Netherlands at least (a few years later he was,
rather
overdone, elected the Greatest Dutchman Ever).
Conclusion: combining the techniques shown in the previous articles,
from exaltation degrees to mundane positions, with the Morinic
house-sign principle, both in the radix and in progressions,
many amazing details can be found, backward at least, that would
be forever hidden if we did not use these techniques.
In
an ideal situation, there would be a complete system a la Hone
of rather abstract
key-words for every (harmonious and unharmonious)
combination of two planets that should be applicable for all
(twelve) possible combinations of sign and house. These would
still be rather abstract, but would be clarified by the highly
individual regular cusps or mundane points it coincides with.
I hope I’ll live to see this happend.
Example: for Mars in a bad aspect to Saturn I would suggest “violence”,
but the degree of violence would depend on these planets’ positions
in the signs and on their rulers’ positions, and the area
of life on their house-sign relationship (if any).
In
the above examples I have used the house-sign principle within
one horoscope (or
between a horoscope and its own progressions).
I have not yet developed a system how to apply the principle
on relations between two horoscopes, for example between Pim
Fortuyn’s radix and his solar revolution for 2002.
You might need to ask your programmer to adjust the program
you use in order to reckon with all these techniques and relationships
in radical analysis as well as in progressions, for like me you
will never be able to find all these indications yourself. For
my own program I did so, it took me more than several months
to realize this and still I find little rules to add, especially
in progressions
Remember: you may have the searching for these house-sign relations
programmed, just like checking for the aspects, but you cannot
have an automatic interpretation.
Finally,
what is the difference between signs and houses? I don’t
know, and in fact it does not matter. As we have seen, in interpretation
we often need the cooperation of the
sign and the house, in other words the one cannot do without
the other and we should not try to separate them until we know
more about the difference between them.
ADDENDUM : TWO INSTRUCTIVE HOROSCOPES
This is the horoscope of a woman who from birth on has got a
serious physical handicap : she misses the bones between the
right elbow and the hand and the right hand is cripple, leaving
her only her left arm to write and work with. This of course
is a typical Gemini/third house/Mercury matter, the question
only being which of these three indications will hold good here.
The surprising answer (though maybe not so surprising for those
who have read and digested this article) is: all three of them,
and intertwined.
In the
signs we see an opposition between the moon in the first house
(physical in
general) and Mars in Gemini. The two planets
are both in a critical degree ruled by Saturn (cripple), which
is a link to Saturn itself, also positioned in the first house.
We might also say that Saturn stresses this opposition by its
being in the same house and the opposition being in Saturn’s
critical degrees. So much for the signs.
The
planet Mercury has the most unlucky position: it is in Pisces,
the sign of its detriment and fall (and in the very degree
of its fall, but I doubt whether degrees of fall have any
significance at all), conjunct to its natural opponent Jupiter.
In order
to make the list of indications complete, this unlucky conjunction
is positioned in the third house.
Both
planets are linked through squares to the opposition Moon – Mars,
the four together forming a classical T-square. Besides of
this, Mars is in Gemini and Mercury and Jupiter are in the
third house
so their square is a good example of a house-sign relation,
enforced by Mercury being involved.
The
opposition between the moon and Mars is from Gemini (hands)
to Sagittarius (legs), which does
not decide between the two.
But the house involved is three, so the final effect by majority
of votes relates to the hands (oh yes, how easy is backward
astrology!).
Here
is an
old rule in astrology (Sepharial, p.8) that in a man’s
horoscope the odd houses refer to the left side of the body
and the even houses to the
right side,
and the reversed in a woman’s horoscope. Here all
four planets involved are positioned in an odd house, meaning
the right side of the body. Finally, the ruler of the third house, Uranus, is in a transgressional
conjunction with its natural enemy, the sun. Their influences
are strengthened, personalized by their being placed in an antiscion
to the MC.
There
is however at least one good side: the cusp of the third house
is rather
well aspected, the only technically bad aspect
is from the sun. The Sun however is standing in the sign of its
exaltation so its effect is finally good, and the sun and Uranus
are in
a trine to the ascendant. Also Mercury’s conjunction to
Jupiter finally, later in life, worked out positively, since
Jupiter is a benefic in its own classical sign. I suppose these
indications refer to her relative success in life through her
intelligence: after of course a lot of bullying during her school
years. Regardless of these truggles, she had a better
career and good life than anyone
had expected at her birth. At the age of 84, she is still doing
reasonably well.
The
astrological problem however is that we have here is the
badly occupied third
house with a well aspected cusp that seem
to result in a cripple arm and a good intelligence. Both typical
third house affairs, and I really can’t tell why it did
not result the other way round (or does intelligence always depend
on the cusp of the third house?). This is the same problem we
met above with the indications for our daughter’s birth
and for my engagement, both typical fifth house affairs. We haven’t
yet got rid of our old friend poly-interpretability.
The second
horoscope I want to discuss is a luckier one. It is the horoscope
of my friend Jan (the one who would not believe
anything was to happen to me in Russia, see http://www.astrosoftware.com/WimvanDam.htm ).
Throughout
his school career Jan was a very intelligent boy, who at school
excelled in and later quite successfully studied
mathematics. Once our teacher of mathematics told his parents
how she feared Jan, 14 years old, raising his finger for then
she invariably thought ‘Good Heavens, where did I go wrong
this time ?’
What
indications, presumably concerning Mercury and its houses and
signs do we find for this intelligence?
Traditional
ones are: the exact trine between the Moon and Mercury, part
of a transgressional grand trine with Mars in three, Mercury
being in Capricorn, the sign of Saturn (mathematics). The
moon
is in a tredecile to cusp three, thus linking the grand trine
to this cusp. With
the tools used in this article we see Mercury’s degree
of exaltation on cusp three. Could we think of a better, a more
natural place? This is a perfect example of the principle that
the general zodiacal (here 15 Virgo) should be in agreement with
the particular mundane (here cusp three.) In addition to this,
on the cusp of the third house we not only find Saturn itself,
but the cusps three and nine are in Saturn’s critical degrees
too. It is of course this repeated influence of Saturn in combination
with Mercury that directed his intelligence towards mathematics.
The most astonishing features however are the conjunctions of
mundane cusp three with radical Mercury and, the other way round,
of mundane Mercury with radical cusp three. Such a double reciprocal
indication is very rare and it stresses once more the value of
cusp three and Mercury in this horoscope. Note that mundane Mercury
is not only conjunct to regular cusp three but also to Saturn.
This cusp three provides us with an impressive mixture of Mercury
and Saturn. Very nice in the light of this article is the tredecile,
a house-sign relation, between Neptune (ruler of nine, study)
and the natural ruler of nine, Jupiter
But
the most striking interaction we found is the one between cusp
three and Mercury: Mercury is both natural and actual ruler
of three and ruler by exaltation and has got a double mundane
conjunction with cusp three. Mercury is also stressed by its
critical degrees being on the axis ascendant-descendant.
Once
more, for an important fact in life we see that there is an
interplay
between
the planet involved (Mercury), the occupation
of the house it rules (three) and the cusp of this house. Gemini
is not involved but Mercury’s other sign, Virgo, certainly
is (I do think Virgo is more characteristic for mathematics than
Gemini, that I link more to languages). And just like with the
preceding horoscope, we find cusp three the main indicator for
intelligence. As we say in science, more research is needed here.
There
is a bad side of this Mercury too: it is placed in Mars’ degree
of exaltation, Mars being weak in Libra, and the moon that makes
a trine to it is ruler of the twelfth house. Since Mercury is
placed in the sixth house and the sun, ruler of the ascendant,
is on the cusp of six, I suppose this relates to the hereditary
disease in his family that caused the death of two elder brothers
soon after birth, probably indicated by the square between weak
Mars in three (brethren) and Uranus, ruler of eight. Jan himself
was only slightly touched by this disease (thanks to the tredecile
between the sun in the sixth house and its ruler Saturn in the
sixth sign, a positive house-sign relationship, reinforced by
the sun’s position in Capricorn ?).
Since the IC is in the exaltation degree of Saturn, ruler of
six, it is highly seductive to see a relationship between the
sixth house, diseases, ruled by Saturn, and the IC, heredity.
It
is interesting how the very same trine between Mercury in the
degree of Mars’ exaltation in the sixth house and Mars
in the third house at one side probably favourably influenced
the native’s intelligence and at the other side indicates
a serious disease in his family. At present I don’t know
how to propose a rule that comprises and discerns between both
meanings, good and bad.
The
reason why I publish these two horoscopes is that they show
once more De Luce’s Golden Rule that for hard facts
in life more than one indication is necessary. So often I
hear
that I use too many tools to show a fact of life from a horoscope: “but
Wim, don’t you see this or that indication suffices,
you really don’t need all these other ones.” My
answer is that I DO need more than one indication, some of
them general some of them particular, whether they are provided
by purely traditional indications or by the more advanced
tools I had the honor to show to you in this and in the preceding
articles. Final
remark : It took me several years to write this article
and some details of the theory, in particular the reinforcement
of a sign-house relation, were developed only in a later stage.
Rereading the article I am struck by the frequency of this phenomenon:
almost every example I mention contains reinforcement. Maybe
in a later stage we will define reinforcement as a condition
for a house-sign relation to be really effective, not just as
additional proof.
References:
Carter, C.E.O. : The Principles of Astrology, London 1971
Holden, James H. : A Horoscopic History of Astrology, Tempe
1996
Hone, Margaret E. : The Modern Text Book of Astrology, London
1970
Luce, Robert de : Constellational Astrology, Los Angeles 1963
Morin de Villefranche, Astrologia Gallica, The Hague 1661,
Book 21
Translations : Astrosynthesis, by Lucy Little, New York 1974
The Morinus System of Horoscope Interpretation, by Richard S.Baldwin,
Washington 1974, reprinted 2008 at the AFA, Tempe Arizona.
Sepharial : The Manual of Astrology, London, 1962
|