Planets and house rulerships

[dadsnook2000]

There was a thread that I responded to a few weeks ago in which mention was made about planets ruling houses. This is something that I had not come across in my 36 years of astrology. Apparently I was wrong about that. While it is not at all common (I have never heard of it before and don't really understand the rational behind it), it has apparently come up in astrological practice.

For those who are interested, please go to this link of Deborah Houlding and look for a link to house rulerships for this printed article.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/

And again, my apologies to any who may have felt dismayed by my reply to them. Dave

 

[Voron]

Not common?

It's interesting that you think it's not common. While I was learning astrology I came up with the exact opposite reactions. I thought house rulerships were as essential bread-and-butter astrology as sign rulerships were.

One of the first things I remember reading about (12 years ago now) was that the Ruler of the Ascendant was a major power player, or "Lord of the Chart" and acted as an ambassador for the Ascendant. Subsequent study revealed that just as the Ascendant is the first house cusp, each other house has a cusp, and the ruler of the sign on the cusp can act as an envoy of that house. Everybody who has an empty house and issues pertaining to that house wants to know where to look for answers. The house ruler can help.

Also -- and this is why I'm confused as to why house rulerships aren't obvious -- there are 12 signs and 12 houses -- each sign has an affinity for a house. Signs have rulers -- so houses have "natural" rulers too. Mercury and the third house just go together. Saturn and the 10th, as well.

These house rulerships are also used *extensively* in horary astrology -- both the cusp rulers and the natural rulers of the house that the question is about play a part in determining the outcome of the answer.

Furthermore, sign and house rulerships can be used to calculate a sort of "hierarchy" of planets -- which planet has the "loudest" voice, or freeest expression, as it were. I'm sure you're aware of mutual receptions -- planets in each others' signs -- well, this can apply to houses too -- where planets, which may not be in mutual reception by sign still rules each others' houses. Some astrology programs, like Astrolog, have this feature built in.

A couple examples: Jupiter in Cancer in the 7th and Mercury in Capricorn in the 1st, in a chart with Sagittarius rising. Even though neither planet rules each other by sign, Jupiter rules the first house by virtue of its Sag cusp, and Mercury rules the 7th by virtue of its Gemini cusp. So there's a form of mutual reception there. If there's an opposition between the planets, it outta soften it up a bit.

Alternately, The Sun in the 10th and Saturn in the 5th, in whatever signs. Each other has a natural affinity for each other's house -- so there is a distinct connection.

In my opinion, house rulerships don't *seem* to be as strong as sign rulerships, but I'm not 100% convinced of that.

Anyway, I just thought I'd share for the class.

-V-

 

[prudence]

There was a thread that I responded to a few weeks ago in which mention was made about planets ruling houses. This is something that I had not come across in my 36 years of astrology. Apparently I was wrong about that. While it is not at all common (I have never heard of it before and don't really understand the rational behind it), it has apparently come up in astrological practice.

For those who are interested, please go to this link of Deborah Houlding and look for a link to house rulerships for this printed article.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/

And again, my apologies to any who may have felt dismayed by my reply to them. Dave

hi Dave,
thanks for this info and the link. I have gone in and tried to find the article on House Rulerships, but cannot locate it. Where is it?

Thanks.

 

[dadsnook2000]

A comment

I addressed signs and houses in one of my recent posts. You may want to review it here in the Astrology forum -- Angular - Succedent - Cadent. Go to the very last post in this thread. Perhaps the answer to why I don't see how rulerships can be attributed to houses can be found there.

I tried to summarize the difference between signs and houses and how planets are placed within them. Tropical signs are seasonal expressions of the Sun-Earth orbit and the Earth's tilted axis relative to that orbit. The signs are constructs plotted against the star field as it seemingl relates to our orbital path and the Sun's seeming rise (in the northern hemisphere) in the sign of Cancer at the summer solstice, etc., etc. The houses are based upon the Earth's daily rotation and our location upon the Earth relative to the Sun-Earth plane. In the end we project houses against the zodiac because the zodiac that we use is a common measuring tool -- the only one we have in a two-dimensional chart form but that doesn't make a house like a sign. I hope the posting I refered to is clearer for those interested in this.

I'll revisit the other web-site and try to find out where that "house rulership" piece is placed. EDITED TO ADD: Go the Recent Additions and the Decomitures III article. Dave

 

[Voron]

definitely different.

I see signs as the verb/adjectives and the houses as the prepositions. The planets, or course, are the nouns. Aspects end up being grammar, syntax and punctuation.

Houses make it happen -- as they relate to the Earth they give the energy a realm in which to manifest. Didn't Gauquelin find them more demonstratively important than signs?

 

[Voron]

Decomiture III article

I've never seen the houses that the planets "rejoiceth" in before, and don't use that. (though apparently my Sun, Saturn, Venus, and Mars all delighteth) I just use the sign rulerships as they translate to the corresponding houses. (1st = Ari, 2nd = Tau ...12th = Pis).

 

[dadsnook2000]

For Voron

Yes, the Gauquelin studies found that zones or sectors, not specifically "houses", were very evident in certain charts in which one would expect to find a planet emphasis for a given occupation -- Mars for sports/athletes, for example. These sectors of high emphasis can be found in many sources but they often occured about 10 degrees before an angle and about 15 degrees into an angular house. The MC and ASC angles were more pronounced in frequency of planet occupation and in the "width" of the active zone, while the DSC angle was slightly less and the IC much less.

As for "decumbiture" (and I can be slightly incorrect here) it is a term from the 16th to 19th centuries (in terms of common usage) that related to a chart drawn up for the moment. Birth times were not often known, and ephemerides were rare and inaccurate (especially before the late 1800's) so astrologers would cast a chart for when a question was asked or when a client visited them. Given the "speech" of those times, your planets may indeed have been seen as "delightith" in their positions.

As I noted, this is generally true but Minderwiz is more knowledgable about those astrological techniques and terms. Dave

 

[leephd]

Not quite

Yes, the Gauquelin studies found that zones or sectors, not specifically "houses", were very evident in certain charts in which one would expect to find a planet emphasis for a given occupation -- Mars for sports/athletes, for example. These sectors of high emphasis can be found in many sources but they often occured about 10 degrees before an angle and about 15 degrees into an angular house. The MC and ASC angles were more pronounced in frequency of planet occupation and in the "width" of the active zone, while the DSC angle was slightly less and the IC much less.

Yes, ut what was not noticed is that Michel Gauquelin actually based the "sectors" on Placidian houses. He simply numbered backwards to confuse the skeptics.

As for "decumbiture" (and I can be slightly incorrect here) it is a term from the 16th to 19th centuries (in terms of common usage) that related to a chart drawn up for the moment. Birth times were not often known, and ephemerides were rare and inaccurate (especially before the late 1800's) so astrologers would cast a chart for when a question was asked or when a client visited them. Given the "speech" of those times, your planets may indeed have been seen as "delightith" in their positions.

Not quite. For those of you who haven't fully repressed your high school Latin, "decumbiture" comes from the word for "lying down." The concept is much older than 16th c., and refers to a chart drawn for the time someone becomes sick, which was defined on when the dis-ease was sufficient that one ceased to function normally, i.e., one took to one's sick bed.

And yes, Dave, the use of house rulerships as either the primary mode or the close second way of interpreting a house began to drop out in the 19th c. It did get so extreme that for a while in the 1960's and 1970's it was being taught as an advanced technique if at all in some circles. But not all.