"Traditional/Classical" view of...

Hi...what is the the view "Traditional/Classical" astrology (I know doesn't really narrow it down much..even Vedic would be insightfull at this point)... of a planet near to a house cusp?. Or maybe I should have titled this "House systems driving me batty again".

Placidus puts three of my planets just inside the cusp..Koch and Equal put them in the previous houses enough to be considered of that house. Out of curiosity I tried Regiomontus system; pushed my first house planet into my 2nd house and other some planets shifted completely of course. There is this view that any planet within 5 deg of the cusp is basically in the realm of that house..that the "cusp" lines are not literaly but just to make us aware of the transtition. I always went with Placidus because the house placements of those "cuspie" placements seemed to match with me. But of late I've wondered again more about these such placements. So, I read house planet descriptions as many places as possible...reread some of my books as well. I find that like for Jupiter.. not much of what is said either way for placement in the 8th or 9th house feel fully there for me. Neptune in the 3rd caught my attention with some things but not enough. I can't make heads or tales out of Chiron placement per house since both seems reasonable only a bit yet neither fully fit per what I've read. I guess I have to go deeper and its all good..(need to get back to crackin those books!.

Desz

Back to basics . . .

Deszroo, you have to go back to some basic considerations. You are using a house system! Why that one? What is its basis: does it divide up the semi-arc between the ASC and MC by tri-secting or proportioning 1) space or distance in degrees along the zodiac or equator, 2) space along the prime meridian, 3) time or 4) using an equal house or other reference point?

If you can appreciate these questions, then it is a logical step to then say why and which of these approaches is suitable to the nature of the chart that I am reading. Charts are a lot like tarot spreads -- you should use the right one for each question or purpose. ALMOST NOBODY DOES THIS . . . I believe that this is just due to ignorance and a lack of formal training.

You might want to use one house system for basic natal charts, another for career or destiny readings, another to gain a sense of spiritual development, another for predicting, etc. I have give explanations of all of this in other threads. However, early-study astrologers might do best by using just one house system -- don't worry about whether a planet should be in one house or the other. When you get to the point of interpretation when you "know" the fit isn't right then you'll also know you need to start thinking more deeply about using different methods for different purposes. Dave

House systems are the bugbear of all those new to Astrology and to many with considerable experience as well.

I'll leave the technical stuff to Dave but the basic question is what system should I use and why? If you are happy with your choice then you will not get hung up on other systems, even if they 'move' planets between houses.

You mention 'traditional/classical approach', This is difficult to define precisely but a rough and ready description would be 'all Astrology before the nineteenth century'(or even twentieth century). As it covers about 3,000 years or so of Astrology it's not easy to be prescriptive in terms of it's basics.

Because it covers such a long period you will find many house systems used. Indeed, the problem is that since the whole sign system was displaced, no system has become 'the system' merely being dominant for a period and then each one holding on to a number of adherents as new systems came in. So there isn't a traditional/classical house system, there are traditional/classical house systems.

The whole sign system which basically takes your first house as the WHOLE of the sign in which your Ascendant falls is probably the earliest system. There are no problems deciding in which house a planet lies because its sign determines its house. This system seems to have been dominant up to around the first century AD. Thereafter there are systems that use the Ascendant as the cusp of the first house and usually the MC as the cusp of the tenth but divide up the space between the Ascendant and MC in slightly different ways and hence the cusps of the 11th and 12th (and correspondingly the 5th and 6th) are different between the systems. The determining factor in popularity tends to have been the availability of tables of houses rather than anything else - thus Regiomontanus was popular in medieval times through to the seventeenth century because tables were readily available. Placidus seems to have supplanted Regiomontanus as Placidus tables became widely available.

Try interpreting a number of charts, including your own using two or three systems. You will find one that works better for you than the others - then use it as your house system. Try moving beyond applying 'cookbook' rules to asking what does the planet signify, how might its sign placement modify its ability to express this signification and what can the houses actually stand for, as areas of life. For example the eighth is often treated as relating to death, or (by psychological Astrologers) sex, or the hidden and occult - but a derived meaning could be the property of a partner, or the home of your oldest child. Taking a wider view of the house might make something that doesn't seem to fit fall into place.

Coming back to your point about planets near a house cusp. Many traditional Astrologers simply took any planet less than 5 degrees in front of the house cusp as being in that house. So this might be an approach that you want to consider. If you have a planet conjunct a house cusp then treat it as though it were in that house.