Interpreting Natal Chart: What to give weight to?

[Marie-Bernard]

I'm just starting to learn about astrology and read "The Art of Chart Interpretation" by Tracy Marks, which should simplify things, but I'm still confused. In my own natal chart the moon is on the east side all alone and it has the most aspects with other planets *however* it's in Scorpio, so very weak. On the west side Mercury is in it's own sign - Gemini, and is also my final depositor *however* it's in combust with the Sun, also in Gemini, so very weak. My ascendant is in Scorpio and it's ruling planet, Mars, is right at the top of the chart on the MC. Do I count Mars as the most important? Or learn about this with someone else's natal chart that's easier to interpret?

 

[Minderwiz]

I'm just starting to learn about astrology and read "The Art of Chart Interpretation" by Tracy Marks, which should simplify things, but I'm still confused. In my own natal chart the moon is on the east side all alone and it has the most aspects with other planets *however* it's in Scorpio, so very weak. On the west side Mercury is in it's own sign - Gemini, and is also my final depositor *however* it's in combust with the Sun, also in Gemini, so very weak. My ascendant is in Scorpio and it's ruling planet, Mars, is right at the top of the chart on the MC. Do I count Mars as the most important? Or learn about this with someone else's natal chart that's easier to interpret?

Tracey Marks used to be the book that I most relied on when I struggled with Modern Astrology. I found her (and Stephen Arroyo) to be the most 'sensible' sources. So if you're just beginning to learn, she is indeed a good start.

However, the book was written in (I believe) 1986, long before the rediscovery traditional Astrology got underway in earnest. She's not a source I use now.

Without sight of your chart I can only offer a number of observations.

Tracey is right to suggest that the Moon in Scorpio is 'weak'. Scorpio is the sign of the Moon's 'Fall'. However we now know that the original interpretation of 'Fall' wasn't so much a signification of inability to 'act' but a signification of a propensity to act 'oddly' (in terms of the planet's general signifcation). The number of aspects is not really relevant, its the quality of the aspects that matters. Do the aspects support or hinder the actions signified by the planet? Traditionally aspects from Venus or Jupiter (especially trines and sextiles) were seen as beneficial. Aspects from Mars and Saturn were seen as 'malefic' or not beneficial might be a better modern term. There are other aspects from planets that might help or hinder, that are derived from their roles in your chart but clearly I can't comment there.

Moon in the East is very good, if she is in the first house, not as good if she's in the second and not good at all if she's in the twelfth. If you use whole sign houses, as I'm trying to do, the Moon would be in the first and so very well placed. How that combines with the aspects, I don't know without a chart.

Mercury in Gemini is good and actually will resist the combustion. Hellenistic Astrologers had a doctrine of 'being in it's own chariot'. A chariot was a covered vehicle and so Mercury had it's own sun shade, so to speak. That idea seemed that idea seemed to have got lost in the middle ages. So your Mercury is stronger than you think.

Final dispositorship is a concept tried out in the last quarter of the twentieth century. It really has no roots in the tradition, though it does make use of the traditional concept of rulership.

With your Ascendant in Scorpio, the Sun is in the eighth house (using whole sign houses), which isn't good but then on it's own that's not a major problem.

Mars on the MC, is good because it's angular. It might not be so good if it's in Cancer, the sign of it's Fall - Mars being eccentric is not ideal, especially if it's in an important place.

Finding the strongest planet in your chart is not easy, most methods are rather complex and as there are several methods available, there's not a unique answer at the end of the process - though I have found that usually there's rough agreement on ranking of planets.

Establishing what used to be called the Lord of the Nativity, is not necessarily the best first move in interpretation. But looking for contenders, as you are doing, is a good move. Planets that are angular or in Succedent houses general are better than those in cadent houses. Planets in houses that aspect the Ascendant are better than planets in houses that don't (Whole Sign Houses help on this one). Planets in their own signs, exaltations or triplicities are better than those which aren't. There are two other levels of essential dignity that were used but you have enough to start with there.

Other factors you might consider is whether the planet is retrograde or not, whether it is fast or not, and where it is in relation to the Sun. Most of us are aware that waxing Moons are stronger than waning Moons. Your Moon is waxing and approaching Full Moon (which will be in Sagittarius, unless the Sun is in the very last degree of Gemini).

A similar idea applies to the other planets, and was referred to as being oriental (rising before the Sun) or occidental (setting after the Sun). Again this is something for later consideration but for now just be aware that it's a method of beginning to refine your basic findings.

Have you got any software yet? Having your own software is a very great help because you can change so many of the 'settings' to see the effects on your chart. The best freebie is Morinus, now in version 8.

 

[Marie-Bernard]

Thanks for the reply, Minderwiz. I don't have any software, I've been using Astrodienst. I did do a whole sign chart, but I feared I wouldn't be accurate in interpretation because so much of the beginner's material I've been reading refers to placidus method. Also I noticed it moved my moon out of the 12th house and I hated to switch chart styles just because whole sign/house was "friendlier" for me.

I've also been looking at a book about charts by Donna Cunningham and Kevin Burk's Guide to Classical Interpretation, if you have any input on those it'd be appreciated. I hoped K.B.'s book would have more information on using whole signs.

 

[Minderwiz]

Thanks for the reply, Minderwiz. I don't have any software, I've been using Astrodienst. I did do a whole sign chart, but I feared I wouldn't be accurate in interpretation because so much of the beginner's material I've been reading refers to placidus method. Also I noticed it moved my moon out of the 12th house and I hated to switch chart styles just because whole sign/house was "friendlier" for me.

Placidus is indeed the most popular house system, not because it's the best but because of historical accident. It is no more likely to produce 'accurate' interpretations than any other quadrant house system or indeed any other house system for that matter. I'm not intending to put Placidus down, there. The use of house systems since medieval times has been subject to fashion. Placidus was actually 'invented' in the seventeenth century. It wasn't adopted till much later, mainly because of the lack of available tables. The availability of tables, in turn determined that it was picked up when Astrology was reinvented in the early twentieth century.

Astrologers tend to keep with the house system they learned on or feel most comfortable with. Personally I use Regiomontanus but that's because when I started horary Astrology over ten years ago, that was the one recommended because Lilly use it. Lilly was the great English horary Astrologer of the seventeenth century. I've since learned that you can do horary with any house system and the very first one used for it was Whole Sign Houses.

Indeed Whole Sign Houses was the earliest house system used. It fell out of favour because of translation difficulties and a belief (since largely disproved) that Ptolemy used a quadrant system for topical analysis (that is looking at issues relating to your life). Over the last twelve or thirteen years the Whole Sign House system has made something of a comeback. A recent poll of professional Astrologers revealed that it was the second most popular, though still a long way behind Placidus.

If you look at Jyotish or Vedic Astrology, they still use Whole Sign Houses and their tradition is continuous. So at some point you will need to decide which suits you. When I learned, I tried various house systems out, there's never any harm in it.


On the software, I'd say that if you're going to get serious, you need something of your own, even if you don't use all the facilities at first. However most programs for sale are expensive. Morinus is free. If you want to look at the cheaper bought programs, John Halloran's Astrology for Windows is fairly good. What you need to check is whether it can do Whole Sign Houses as well as the others. Virtually all the expensive ones do and Morinus does.

I've also been looking at a book about charts by Donna Cunningham and Kevin Burk's Guide to Classical Interpretation, if you have any input on those it'd be appreciated. I hoped K.B.'s book would have more information on using whole signs.

I have one of the older editions of the Kevin Burk book, and it encouraged me towards the classical approach, though in itself, it falls a little short. I know he's revised it but I don't know what revisions he's included.

I am not a fan of Donna Cunningham, though many are. I have only bought one of her books and ended up screaming at it. Her approach just doesn't gel with me. That being said many people like her. The two books are chalk and cheese. You need something that gels with you, so have a look at copies if you can.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Placidus is indeed the most popular house system, not because it's the best but because of historical accident.

Indeed Whole Sign Houses was the earliest house system used. It fell out of favour because of translation difficulties and a belief (since largely disproved) that Ptolemy used a quadrant system for topical analysis (that is looking at issues relating to your life).

Whole sign fell out of favour in Antiquity because of it was perceived to give poor results. Valens used it, but the text as we have it contains an interpolation which criticises it as inferior to Equal House (Bk 9 Ch 3). The claim that Ptolemy used a quadrant system was made by Antiochus of Athens about a century later and it was accepted by Porphyry. But since Ptolemy was not regarded as an authority on astrology (as opposed to astronomy) in those days, he was hardly an influence.

If you look at the history of astrology, there is a clear evolution:
Whole sign > Equal House > Quadrant systems
Porphyry > Medieval systems (Placidus, Campanus, Regiomontanus)
Yes, Placidus is medieval: Abraham ibn Ezra gives the algorithm that we use in computing today.

When I started learning astrology on 1965, I used Equal House because the only textbooks I could buy used it. I then used Prophyry for horary charts. Since then, I've tested everything. I settled on Placidus because it seemed the most reliable and made sense theoretically. Campanus made sense in theory (hence Prudence Jones's advocacy), but it just didn't work as well.

 

[kalliope]

Minderwiz, are you familiar with Rod Suskin's The Rules of Chart Interpretation? This thread has made me dig it out, because I never had the chance to sit down and read it thoroughly. But a friend has asked for some chart info, so I may use her as a guinea pig and work through it.

It's a slim little booklet (only about 1/4" thick), and he appears to have a quite traditional outlook, and seems to have been Robert Zoller's student. What caught my attention about it is that it's short, and with a clear step-by-step approach to charts. It's what I bought when I was absolutely desperate for the imaginary book that should exist as a Part II of Benjamin Dykes' Traditional Astrology For Today: An Introduction, (which I loved so much for its clarity, if you remember me gushing about it.) Anyway, Marie-Bernard, maybe these could be other books for you to investigate?

I have that Donna Cunningham book. Since I'm so familiar with psych-type modern astrology I thought I'd try some full-on charts from that perspective, but I have too much traditional knowledge now for that one to fit very comfortably in my brain. I'm going to check out the Tracy Marks book, so thanks for mentioning it, both of you!

P.S. I've attached a quick photo of the brief outline Suskin provides of his method, as an FYI.

 

[Minderwiz]

Kalliope,

No it's not something I'm familiar with but thanks for the page shot, and that looks a spot on approach to me.

I agree with you about Dykes - He really does need a volume II.

Avelar and Ribiero fall into the same category. Greatbook for the basics but it could do with a companion volume to go over some chart interpretations. I'll have to get in touch with Helena and ask her about the promised follow up volume.

 

[Minderwiz]

Whole Sign Houses were used right up to the ninth century as the main system for topical analysis. The house system called after Porphyry was described by Valens and is possibly his invention (posited by Robert Schmidt).

Valens Book 9 Chapter 3 that you refer to indeed uses the Equal House system. It may or may not be an interpolation (though Professor Mark Riley makes no reference to this in his Survey, merely referring to it as 'fragmentary') Project Hindsight see it as a miscellaneous collection of afterthoughts mainly dealing with life progress and the length of life. Now there are indeed fifth century additions to the work but Riley is careful in his translation to keep that separate and Book 9 Chapter 3 doesn't appear to be one of them.

Book 9 Chapter 3 deals with the subject of Chronocrators and the Protpitious and Improptious times of life. That is, the chapter is concerned with 'forecasting' rather than topical affairs. It's concerned with the way a person's life unfolds. And as I've already stated different house systems were used for the length of life calculation (these are usually quadrant systems but Valens looks at so many variants that it may not be surprising that he uses Equal Houses for at least one of them).

Now I've not get anything against the Equal House system. I learned using it and it's as good as Placidus too.

Certainly Rob Hand and Chris Brennan argue that the dropping of Whole Sign Houses was due to a misunderstanding of Ptolemy by early medieval Astrologers. Ptolemy like Valens used a quadrant system for the length of life calculation.

There's no evolution, clear or otherwise of house systems and certainly no objective evidence that Placidus gives the best results. Ther may be personal evidence and I'm not here arguing that people should change their house system or that Whole Sign Houses are superior. By Valens/Ptolemy's time Whole Sign Houses, Equal Houses and Porphyry were co-existant. (and may well have been for much longer if the quadrant house system described by Valens came from an older source). Quadrant houses did not evolve out of Whole Sign Houses. The Porphyry house syste was developed for an entirely different purpose. Alcabitius (again the system existed before the life of the man whose name it bears) was a development of Porphyry, The glut of Medieval house systems, is, according to Hand and Brennan, due to attempts to 'reconstruct' Ptolemy's quadrant system more accurately - though mistakenly based on the view that Ptolemy used that house system for all his Astrology.

If I remember correctly, though I'll check this, Hand argues that Placidus was accepted by the twentieth century revival because Raphael's Almanac carried the tables. The point he was trying to make though is explicit, House systems are popular, not because they are the best or even improvements on what was used before, but because they happen to be in the right place at the right moment of history (there are those who would see that as being' in itself, significant of superiority).

From my personal point of view, House Systems become personal to the Astrologer, in the sense that Astrologers get used to the system they use and get their best results with systems they are familiar with. Adapting to a new system is not easy. If you find you get best results with Placidus, then keep to it. I'm not arguing that people should change house systems. I do think beginners should try several till they find one they like.

Like you I've tried a lot of house systems, some give slightly different slants than others
I once did a study of four separate systems, equal houses and thee quadrant systems. The results had much in common, especially between the quadrant systems. Looking at the results as a whole, the change in systems highlighted some features that might otherwise have been missed.

It might be that I reject the Whole Sign House approach but that certainly doesn't stop it from being the original system and it certainly does not prove that Placidus must be best (incidentally I've heard the same claims made for Koch on the grounds that it's genuinely modern, though these days it seems to have fallen out of favour).

Edited to add:

You might be interested in the following:

http://theastrologypodcast.com/2013/12/09/robert-hand-reconciling-modern-traditional-astrology/

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/Robert-Schmidt-On-Hellenistic-Astrology-Part-1.htm
http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/Robert-Schmidt-On-Hellenistic-Astrology-Part-2.htm
http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/2011/12/08/did-ptolemy-use-whole-sign-houses/

The claim that Ptolemy used a quadrant system was made by Antiochus of Athens about a century later and it was accepted by Porphyry.

Strictly speaking this is not true. None of Antiochus' writings survive. Franz Cumont argued that he lived in the first century BCE, in which case he couldn't possibly have made such a statement, as he would have been dead before Ptolemy was born. David Pingree disagrees with Cumont and puts him as late as the second century AD. In which case it's possible that he was a contempory of Ptolemy. He certainly was a source for Porphyry and later for Rhetorius.

Porphyry's description of Ptolemy's house system relates to the length of life calculation and describes a quadrant system, which was used by all Astrologers for that calculation (but not topical analysis) I've not come across one Astrologer or commentator who argues that Ptolemy didn't describe a quadrant system. Whether he actually used one, is of course a different question, but if he did, it was for the length of life calcuation, as that is what his described house system relates to)

 

[Marie-Bernard]

Thanks for those book recs, kalliope! The one by Suskin looks particularly exciting. What is the difference between traditional and classical astrology?

Are there any "code words" I could look for when I'm book shopping so I can tell the difference between harnessing Saturn's challenging energy to facilitate personal growth and a book that has the answers to 'what does it do, how does it function?'

 

[MasterJm]

I'm just starting to learn about astrology and read "The Art of Chart Interpretation" by Tracy Marks, which should simplify things, but I'm still confused. In my own natal chart the moon is on the east side all alone and it has the most aspects with other planets *however* it's in Scorpio, so very weak. On the west side Mercury is in it's own sign - Gemini, and is also my final depositor *however* it's in combust with the Sun, also in Gemini, so very weak. My ascendant is in Scorpio and it's ruling planet, Mars, is right at the top of the chart on the MC. Do I count Mars as the most important? Or learn about this with someone else's natal chart that's easier to interpret?

I dont have Mars for ruler of Scorpio. Pluto is the ruler. For me it's very difficult to feel what is more important without to see the whole chart, but planets in signs and their angles are more important for me than planets placements in the houses. I dont pay too much attention to traditional falls, exils etc too. All these are details. Aspects and rulers aspects are very important. Sun, Moon, Ascendant's aspects are the most important. I pay attention to decans and grades too.