12 houses in Astrology For the newcomer, and even for experienced astrologers, the question of which astrological house system to use is a vexed and often complicated one. Two Two of the most important factors in any astrological chart are the Ascendant and the Midheaven. The angle of the Ascendant shows the degree of the zodiac that is visible ust on the horizon at the moment of birth. The Midheaven !M"# indicates the degree that is highest in the s$y above the horizon at the place of birth. %bviously, these two angles differ considerably depending upon where the birth ta$es place. &xactly on the equator, nights are always '( hours long) the Ascendant is always square !at *+ degrees# to the M". ut the further north or south you go, the more slanted the M" is to the Ascendant - people in northern cotland, for example, experience very long winter nights and very short summer nights. /n such a case, the M" is clearly not literally square the Ascendant. 0ow can this be shown accurately through the astrological house system - and does it matter if it is not1 To answer this, we first need to consider a little of the history of the concept of astrological houses. Astrological house systems are generally used as a way of ta$ing the environment into account in udging a natal chart. &ach house 2deals with2 a specific sphere of life, and planets and points within that house are thought to express themselves especially in matters related to that house. The very first astronomers were in fact court astrologers by trade, and astronomers as a hobby !how times change...#. These ancient astrologers had devised a division of the zodiac called mundane division in order to study how a specific personality !shown by the signs and planets# would deal with the environment in which it found itself. "laudius 3tolemy discussed discussed in great detail detail the problems of house divisions, divisions, and the experiences covered by each house. 0ence some house systems are thousands of years old) others maybe only thirty. This diversity is one of the main points of contention between astrologers themselves. All systems are astronomically valid, but their standpoints vary, vary, and therefore so do the degrees at which the houses fall. Many astrologers are even unaware of the conceptual differences in the various house systems, and tend to stic$ rigidly to the one which they were taught. This is understandable - calculating different house divisions by hand is very laborious and long-winded, and even today with computer software available, the busy astrologer usually has other more pressing matters to attend to. 0ow then does an astrologer choose a house system1 4ell, the individual studying alone is more than li$ely to use 3lacidus 0ouses. The reason for this is simple - he has to consult an ephemeris in any case, and 5aphael2s &phemeris is the most widely used, which gives the information needed for 3lacidus 0ouses.
tudents who study with a recognised school are usually introduced to all of the house systems, but taught to use one far more than the others. This is usually the &qual 0ouse system, which incidentally is also the oldest one. /n this house system, the twelve divisions are very much li$e spo$es of a wheel, equally spaced at 6+ degree intervals, with all houses being the same size. This is the easiest of the 0ouse systems to use, as it requires no further calculation. %nce the Ascendant is $nown, one simply divides the rest of the chart using the Ascending degree as a starting point - so if the Ascendant is at (( degrees 7eo, this is ta$e as the cusp of the first house, with the second house beginning at (( degrees 8irgo, the third at (( degrees 7ibra and so forth. The &qual 0ouse system is conceptually valid within today2s astrological standpoint that every individual is free to become what their birth chart symbolises as their ultimate talent. The Ascendant has been shown to correspond to the way the person automatically approaches their environment - the 2persona2 in 9ungian terms. This person is therefore li$ely to approach every field of life in a specific way. A person with an Aquarius Ascendant, for example, will approach money-ma$ing and material values !(nd house# in a 3isces manner, will learn !6rd house# in an Aries manner, deal with family !:th house# in a Taurus manner and so forth. The biggest criticism of the &qual 0ouse system concerns the position of the M", which, using this system is more often than not not the cusp of the tenth house !or any house# but rather is found within the *th, '+th or ''th house. The M", being the highest point at birth, symbolises the aims and ambitions one wor$s towards, and, by extension, one2s career potential and public image. ut these areas are also '+th house matters, devised, because of that house2s association with aturn, to show precisely these areas of life. /t is therefore conceptually necessary !so goes the argument# that the M" be the cusp of the '+th house. For this reason, the &qual 0ouse system has a limited following outside the ;<, although it is still the commonest 0ouse system within the ;<. 4hat of all the other house systems, then1 4hy are their house divisions so irregular1 %n what basis are they calculated1 /t all depends on how the astrologer perceives the environment, and therefore on what astronomical planes of measurement are used to divide the celestial sphere into '( houses. /t is important to understand that even though the house cusps are irregular in these other systems, the space they represent is regular. This is because although the chart is presented on flat paper, it is in fact a three dimensional sphere. The twelve equal divisions of that sphere fall onto the paper at irregular places !thin$ of the segments of an orange falling onto the table#, depending on how slanted the sphere is to that piece of paper. The slant of the sphere depends upon what astronomical coordinates are being used to cut the sphere, and this in turn depends on what is considered important in the environment. 9ohannes "ampanus, chaplain to the '6th century 3ope ;rban /8, was a noted mathematician. 0e realised the astrological necessity to have the four angles as cusps of the 'st, :th, =th and '+th houses, as well as the mathematical necessity to have houses of equal space. 0e therefore lin$ed the division to the astronomical equivalents of the four cardinal points !the Meridian going through the north and south points of the horizon and the 3rime 8ertical going through the east and west
points of the horizon#. These planes are then lin$ed to the geographical position and latitude of birth, hence this house system produces cusps which are the most apparently irregular in size. For someone born above the 3olar circle, >> degrees north, drawing some of the houses would be mathematically impossible. 0owever, if wor$ing on the chart of, say, a northern farmer or fisherman then this house system may more accurately represent his life than some others. For instance, being so close to the land, it would be conceivably accurate for him to have very large (nd and ?th houses as he struggles to ma$e a living, which would be much more important to him than social entertainment or creative activities !very small @th and ''th houses#. The 5egiomantus system was devised by a ':th century professor of astronomy, 9ohannes Muller, and was meant to be an improvement on the "ampanus system. This system uses the &quator and the horizon as the two planes cutting the sphere, and since the &quator is at most (6.@ degrees from the ecliptic, house cusps are much more regular. "onceptually, the individual is contained within an environment lin$ed to the &arth2s movement around the un. Much used on the continent, the 5egiomantus system could be argued to be very appropriate to use for someone who has lived in the same place all their lives, and to whom then the &arth-un lin$s are very valid. The 3lacidus and
individual's own environmental circumstances, can only make it more accurate in its predictive abilities too.
