Astrological Houses and the Gauquelins' research.

Maggie McPherson pisces@cs.mcgill.ca


David's posting of a summary of the Gauquelins' research prompted me to
think about astrological houses. The Gauquelins found that planets
traditionally associated with certain careers (or with talents useful in
those careers) appeared in the 12th and 9th houses with a frequency
greater than chance for people successful in those careers. In traditional
astrology, the 12th and 9th houses are considered "weak", and they have
little to do with the career or personality type, which are ruled by
the 10th and 1st houses respectively. Houses 1 and 10 are also considered
"stronger", and so a planet placed in these houses should be more
prominent. Planets related to a particular career should be prominent,
one would think, in the charts of people who achieve prominence in that
profession.

The Gauquelins used a house system that differs from all the systems used
by astrologers, but their findings cannot be accounted for in this way.
Subsets of their data have been reanalysed using Placidus and Equal House
systems, and the results were replicated. (The 10th cusp, the midheaven,
is the same for the traditional systems and the Gauquelins' system, but
their "rising point" differs from traditional ascendants by as much as
20 degrees for European latitudes.)

How can one resolve this apparent discrepancy between tradition and the
statistical findings of the Gauquelins?

One might be tempted to assert that the traditional house system(s) should
be abandoned in the face of the published evidence. On the other side, the
astrologer whose experience convinces her/him that the traditional houses
(e.g., the Placidus houses) are useful might be tempted to dismiss the
Gauquelins' findings as a curious anomaly. In other words, one might be
tempted to assume that the traditional houses are either right or wrong.
But this would be to fall prey to a common fallacy in reasoning: the
fallacy of the false dilemma. It need not be true that the traditional
house systems are either wholly wrong or wholly right. A possibility
exists that different house systems are appropriate when applying
different astrological techniques or when addressing different questions.

It may be possible to reconcile the two forms of evidence. Perhaps one kind
of house system is useful for determining personality and success in career,
and another is useful for other purposes, such as transits. The astrologer
who has worked with transits will undoubtedly have found impressive
correlations between transits through traditional houses and circumstances
in the life of the querant.

I know of one suggestion for an alternative approach to houses that might
satisfy both the traditional astrologer and the astrologer who feels compelled
to take account of the findings of the Gauquelins.

The suggested approach is the brain-child of the always innovative Axel Harvey
of Montreal. An excerpt from an article of his appears below. I present this
excerpt without his permission, but I am sure he will not be upset with me
for doing so; I have never known Aquarians to shy away from publicity. The
excerpt is from an article entitled "Horoscopes in Azimuth" which appeared
in the premier issue of the short-lived local publication "Considerations."

In presenting this excerpt, my aim is to demonstrate that possibilities
exist for house systems and combinations of house systems that will
account for the Gauquelins' data as well as the daily experience of the
astrologer. I cannot say whether the particular approach taken by Axel
Harvey is the way of the future (although it is certainly worthy of
serious consideration).

============================================================================
HOROSCOPES IN AZIMUTH
by Axel Harvey

For over ten years I have been drawing clockwise horoscopes -- that is to say,
with the Zodiac going in the usual direction but with the houses proceeding
widdershins as in Figure 1.

[Partial reproduction of Figure 1, using the medieval house wheel,
which is slightly easier to produce in ascii than a circle; the 10th
house follows the MC in a clockwise direction, where the 9th house
would usually be; the 1st house follows the Vertex is a clockwise
direction, and the 7th house follows the Antivertex in that direction:]

MC
____________________
|\ /\ /|
| \ 9 / 10 \ 11 / |
| \/________\/ |
| 8 /| |\ 12 |
| / | | \ |
Antivertex |/ 7 | | 1 \| Vertex
|\ | | /|
| \ | | / |
| 6 \|________|/ 2 |
| /\ /\ |
| / 5 \ 4 / 3 \ |
|/________\/________\|
IC

The reasons for placing houses this way, contrary to zodiacal movement and
to the habits of the profession, did not all come to me at once. Perhaps
the best way to introduce the subject to readers is to retrace the steps
I followed as I gradually developed my techniques.

Traditional houses are a riddle to anyone who stops to think about them.
No sooner has the Sun risen than it is in the twelfth house, having just
crossed the cusp of the first. In the following 24 hours it will cross
all the other cusps in reverse order, entering each house through the
back door. Yet the circle of houses is supposed to be a local image of
the great circle of the Zodiac. Why, then, is it so peculiarly arranged?

The question must have occurred to thousands of young astrologers, whose
teachers serenely answered, "Ah, yes, a typical beginner's question --
the stars go westwards in hourly motion and eastwards in zodiacal motion,
and there's nothing we can do about it."

However, I felt there was something to be done about it. I tried various
combinations of house numbering, of placing each house behind or ahead of
its cusp, and of assigning starting points. The scheme I settled on had
the upper meridian as cusp X, like most systems, but the tenth house lay
clockwise from its cusp; then followed cusp XI and so on. Hence Figure 1.

This sort of map had two advantages.

First, the planets now proceeded from one house to the next in rational order,
and entered each house by the cusp of that house. Diurnal movement thus
resembled zodiacal movement more closely, so that the ancient analogy
between signs and houses began to make more sense.

Secondly -- and this must be the decisive point whenever anyone talks about
houses -- it worked better. Even though I applied the most literal, old-
fashioned interpretations to the houses, those interpretations gave better
results with the houses in their new places.

You will have noticed that I took the Vertex, rather than the Descendant,
as cusp of the first house. Originally I made this choice on aesthetic
grounds. Edward Johndro, Charles Jayne and others had studied the prime
vertical and found that its western branch (the Vertex proper) was more
sensitive and important than its opposite (the so-called Electrical
Ascendant or Antivertex). Now if I were to choose the horizon to define my
cusps I and VII, the first cusp (Descendant) would end up being secondary
to the seventh (Ascendant); but if I chose the prime vertical then the
first (Vertex) would be more powerful than the seventh (Antivertex) --
and this certainly seemed to be the more proper arrangement. It should be
added that the Ascendant continues to be a major point in the new system:
but it is no longer a cusp and moves around in houses V, VI, VII and VIII.

As it turns out there are more rigorous reasons for preferring the Vertex
as Cusp I; we shall return to this issue at the end of this article.

Since the Ascendant is no longer a cusp, I could not take just any popular
house system and number it backwards. However, the Vertex is always 90
degrees from the meridian as measured along the horizon; therefore it
seemed natural to use a house system where the cusps were all 30 degrees
apart in azimuth ("azimuth," a term familiar to sailors, simply means
"distance measured along the horizon"). Such a system of houses must be
the simplest of all to demonstrate in the field. Stand up and face due
south. Raise your arm overhead and lower it until it points straight
before you, and you have drawn the upper meridian: cusp X. Now swing
your arm towards a point 30 degrees to the right and move it straight
up and down again from that point: you have drawn cusp XI. Go another
30 degrees to the right and make the same gesture: there is cusp XII.
Do this once more: by now you have moved your arm thrice 30 degrees,
or one quarter-circle, from the meridian and you are drawing the prime
vertical in the West -- cusp I. And so on around the horizon.

The Azimuth houses must be older than the constellations. You have just
repeated the gestures which would come naturally to a prehistoric queen
dividing a berry patch between clan houses, or to a shaman dividing a
hunting territory between twelve villages.

The mathematically-minded will turn to the Appendix at the end of this
article for information about calculating the longitude of Azimuth cusps
and related matters.

[An example horoscope deleted.]

A FEW APHORISMS

There is no room in an introductory article to discuss all the fine points
of interpreting Azimuth maps. The following notes are a rough-and-ready
guide for astrologers who wish to try Azimuth horoscopes but fear the
confusion which can arise from the simultaneous use of two maps.

1. The Ascendant governs personality -- that is to say, how we appear to
reasonably acute and compassionate observers. It also indicates our
unconscious goals -- the values we adhere to even if we never think about
them, and to which we will remain loyal even in the most difficult times
(and even if we don't realize we are doing so).

2. The Vertex answers the question, "Who do you think you are?" It also
corresponds to our will -- that is to say, the choices we make with open
eyes -- and the values we adopt consciously. Whether or not we can defend
these values successfully depends on various circumstances, such as aspects
to the Vertex and its ruler.

3. Similarly the whole Zodiac map, with the Ascendant as cusp I, points to:
fate, heredity, social and physical influences, things that happen to us.
The whole Azimuth map points to: intentions, desires, opinions, how we
try to organize our lives, what we do.

One can look at the stars passively, as coming from the East, or one can
think of oneself as a star like Paracelsus, and direct oneself westwards.
That is Zodiac-wise and clockwise thinking. To hold the first view
exclusively makes one a vegetable; the second, a fool.

4. Since the planets, by diurnal motion, pass through Azimuth houses in
rational order, the Azimuth map is the ideal one to use for primary
directions. On the other hand, traditional houses are the correct ones
to use with transits. The general rule is: in predictive work, use a
house system that goes in the same direction as the significators.

Solar returns are a special form of transit and should therefore be handled
entirely in the traditional framework.

(Unfortunately I can't deal with primaries in this issue. Primary directions
mentioned in this article are directions in Azimuth, which differ from
classical methods.)

5. The most useful map for delineation is the Zodiac map with Azimuth
cusps (e.g., Figure 1). It combines fate and will.

6. The Ascendant usually, but not invariably, governs physical appearance.
A good example of a physique strongly coloured by the Vertex is that of
musician Mick Jagger, whose spare frame and de'sabuse' features owe more
to his Saturn-Vertex opposition than to his Jupiter-Ascendant conjunction.
(Data: 04:30 UT, 26th July 1943; 51N27 00E12.)

7. The lords of the Descendant and the Antivertex represent the two possible
types of spouse in the native's life.

8. Zodiacal aspects may be reflected in totality or in great part by
identical aspects in the Azimuth map; or they may be almost entirely
absent from the Azimuth chart, being replaced by different aspects
involving different pairs of planets.

In the first case we have a subject who always appears to know what he or
she is about; whose resources and ambitions are evenly balanced; who is
comfortable in the environment he or she was born to.

In the contrary case we have both great over-reachers and under-achievers;
people who rebel against society, or who simply deny the importance of
historical or cultural roots.

[Two examples deleted.]

MORE RIGOROUS THOUGHTS ON HOUSE SYSTEMS

I said that my original reasons for adopting a new house system were, firstly,
the intuitive requirement that planets should proceed in proper order through
the houses and that cusp I should be more important than cusp VII; secondly,
a crude, empirical satisfaction with the results.

There still remained doubts about the symbolic correctness of the arrangement.
Astrologers have long believed that the diurnal cycle is manifested in the
polarity of day and night, that the (tropical) zodiacal cycle is manifested
in the polarity of Summer and Winter, and that an analogy between these
two polarities is significant.

Now if we put the first house in the West, where the Sun begins his descent
under the Earth, it can hardly be paired with Aries where the Sun begins
his climb to the height of Summer. One might make things work by calling
Libra the first sign -- a practice endorsed by Jewish custom, in which the
day begins at sundown and the year in September. Such a symbolic revolution,
however, would be hard to accept for most Western astrologers: I, for one,
find it impossible to associate Mayday with the eighth house.

It has struck me recently that there is no analogy between two polarities.
There is just one polarity: North and South. In Aries the Sun begins his
vernal ascent to the North. In the West the Sun begins his daily tour --
northwards.

...the horizon, which is none other than the "ecliptic" of the Azimuth
house system, [as] viewed from the centre of the celestial sphere ...
winds north [of the Equator], then south, then back to its starting point.
[When the] Zodiac ... is viewed from outside the celestial sphere [then in
both cases] house or signs follow one another in the familiar, natural order:
arithmetic and symbol both maintained. [In other words, both the Azimuth
houses and the Zodiacal signs follow a sinusoidal pattern with respect to
the Equator such that the nodes or zero-points are at Vertex/0-Aries and
Antivertex/0-Libra, the peak is in the north at 90 degrees, or IC/0-Cancer,
and the trough is in the south at 270 degrees, or MC/0-Capricorn.]

So it turns out that my choice of the prime vertical to define cusps I and
VII was more appropriate than I had suspected. In order for a house system
to follow the North-South dichotomy rigorously, a point situated on cusp I
or VII should be exactly half-way between North and South. This is true of
a point anywhere along the prime vertical, which is 90 degrees from both
the North and South points of the horizon. It is *not* true of a point on
the Ascendant or Descendant, which may lie considerably closer to the
southern side (e.g. Sagittarius rising in the northern hemisphere) or the
northern side (e.g. Cancer rising in the northern hemisphere) of the
celestial sphere.

(Australian readers will be dissatisfied with this explanation. As they can
find out on reading the Appendix, I have generalized the discussion by
referring to elevated and inferior poles instead of North and South. This
still does not answer the old question of whether people in the southern
hemisphere should begin their Zodiac in Aries or elsewhere -- a question
I leave unraised.)

APPENDIX

The following notation is used throughout:

L Geographic (geodetic) latitude
E Obliquity of the ecliptic
a RAMC (right ascension of the upper meridian)
Ap, Dp Right Ascension and declination of a planet or other point
T, N Astrological azimuth and altitude
S Sign ( L ) = +1 for North latitudes
= -1 for South latitudes
n the appropriate cusp or house number

The formulae given below make use of a three-variable function, R (A,B,C),
which produces a correct Ascendant when:

A = a, the RAMC,
B = L, the latitude,
and C = E, the obliquity

A practical form of function R is

R (a,L,E) = tan^-1 cos a /-g + H [where ^ means "to the power of"]
where H = 0, if -g >= 0
and H = 180 dg if -g < 0

g = sin a cos E + tan L sin E

The astrological azimuth of a planet, T, measured from the Vertex through
the cardinal point of the horizon nearest the elevated pole, is found thus:

(i) Let A = a - Ap - 90 dg
B = Dp
C = 90 dg - L

(ii) Evaluate R. Subtract 90 dg from the result. Finally multiply
by S, to obtain T, the azimuth.

T = S(R - 90 dg)

(iii) Altitude is
N = sin^-1 (sin B cos C - sin A cos B sin C)

Azimuth cusp longitudes in the Zodiac are found by using the following
variables in R:

In all cases,
B = sin^-1 (cos L sin 30 dg[n + 2])
C = obliquity, E

Now let k = a - tan^-1 (sin L tan 30 dg[n + 2])

Then, for Cusps X, XI, XII and I:
A = k - 90 dg

and for Cusps II and III:
A = k + 90 dg

One can employ the usual formulae for the Midheaven and Vertex instead of
following the procedure given here for Cusps X and I.

No further treatment of the result is needed in northern latitudes. For
southern latitudes the following shuffle is necessary:

Cusp III + 180 dg becomes Cusp XI
Cusp II + 180 dg becomes Cusp XII
Cusp XII + 180 dg becomes Cusp II
Cusp XI + 180 dg becomes Cusp III.

Azimuth houses are not defined on the Equator, and make confusing maps
inside 15 degrees of latitude North and South. On the other hand they
are increasingly well-behaved as they approach the poles. One cannot
expect a house system to have both (a) the horizon or prime vertical as
a cusp, and (b) validity at every point of the globe: it is wanting to
square the circle. Besides, if astrological factors interact with the
social or physical surroundings then it may be wrong to use the same
kind of chart for Colombia and Uganda as for Canada and Finland.
========================================================================

... for your consideration.

.