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 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 just on the horizon at the moment of birth. The Midheaven (MC) indicates the
degree that is highest in the sky above the horizon at the place of birth.
Obviously, these two angles differ considerably depending upon where the birth takes
place. Exactly on the equator, nights are always 12 hours long; the Ascendant is
always square (at 90 degrees) to the MC. But the further north or south you go, the
more slanted the MC is to the Ascendant - people in northern Scotland, for example,
experience very long winter nights and very short summer nights. In such a case,
the MC is clearly not literally square the Ascendant. How can this be shown
accurately through the astrological house system - and does it matter if it is not? 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 taking the environment
into account in judging a natal chart. Each house 'deals with' 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. Claudius Ptolemy discussed in great detail the problems of house divisions,
and the experiences covered by each house.
Hence 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, 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
stick 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.
How then does an astrologer choose a house system? Well, the individual studying
alone is more than likely to use Placidus Houses. The reason for this is simple - he
has to consult an ephemeris in any case, and Raphael's Ephemeris is the most widely
used, which gives the information needed for Placidus Houses.

Students 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
Equal House system, which incidentally is also the oldest one. In this house system,
the twelve divisions are very much like spokes of a wheel, equally spaced at 30
degree intervals, with all houses being the same size. This is the easiest of the House
systems to use, as it requires no further calculation. Once the Ascendant is known,
one simply divides the rest of the chart using the Ascending degree as a starting
point - so if the Ascendant is at 22 degrees Leo, this is take as the cusp of the first
house, with the second house beginning at 22 degrees Virgo, the third at 22 degrees
Libra and so forth.
The Equal House system is conceptually valid within today's 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 'persona' in Jungian terms. This
person is therefore likely to approach every field of life in a specific way. A person
with an Aquarius Ascendant, for example, will approach money-making and material
values (2nd house) in a Pisces manner, will learn (3rd house) in an Aries manner,
deal with family (4th house) in a Taurus manner and so forth.
The biggest criticism of the Equal House system concerns the position of the MC,
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 9th, 10th or 11th house.
The MC, being the highest point at birth, symbolises the aims and ambitions one
works towards, and, by extension, one's career potential and public image. But these
areas are also 10th house matters, devised, because of that house's association with
Saturn, to show precisely these areas of life. It is therefore conceptually necessary
(so goes the argument) that the MC be the cusp of the 10th house. For this reason,
the Equal House system has a limited following outside the UK, although it is still the
commonest House system within the UK.
What of all the other house systems, then? Why are their house divisions so
irregular? On what basis are they calculated? It 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 12 houses.
It 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 (think 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.
Johannes Campanus, chaplain to the 13th century Pope Urban IV, was a noted
mathematician. He realised the astrological necessity to have the four angles as
cusps of the 1st, 4th, 7th and 10th houses, as well as the mathematical necessity to
have houses of equal space. He therefore linked 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 Prime Vertical going through the east and west

points of the horizon). These planes are then linked 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 Polar circle, 66 degrees north, drawing some of the
houses would be mathematically impossible. However, if working 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 2nd and 8th houses as he
struggles to make a living, which would be much more important to him than social
entertainment or creative activities (very small 5th and 11th houses).
The Regiomantus system was devised by a 14th century professor of astronomy,
Johannes Muller, and was meant to be an improvement on the Campanus system.
This system uses the Equator and the horizon as the two planes cutting the sphere,
and since the Equator is at most 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic, house cusps are
much more regular. Conceptually, the individual is contained within an environment
linked to the Earth's movement around the Sun. Much used on the continent, the
Regiomantus 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 Earth-Sun links are
very valid.
The Placidus and Koch systems have a different conceptual basis, that of time
systems. Placidus de Tito, a 17th century monk and mathematician devised a system
dividing the time it takes the Ascendant to become the MC. His system became
widespread only in the 19th century when adopted by Raphael's ephemeris. It could
be argued that the natural approach to life, as shown by the Ascendant, moves
through time as the person grows and develops. This notion would seem to fit most
people world-wide, and goes some way (together with Raphael's) to explaining the
popularity of the Placidus system today.
The Birth Place Method was devised by Dr Koch in 1971. It also uses the notion of a
plane of time, but this time sweeping down from the MC to the Ascendant, and more
closely linked to the horizon. The MC is therefore considered the most important
point, as well as the local geographical environment. The MC here is linked to ego,
and to who one is and what one wants to become. Naturally this emphasises
individual freedom and free will, and therefore this system is very popular in the US
amongst astro-psychologists. When working with the chart of someone who has been
lucky enough to have the freedom to become who they want, this system would
seem eminently suitable.
With modern computerised calculations, it has become far easier for the astrologer to
experiment with different house systems. In the future, tailoring the house system to
the client's own needs and environment is likely to become much more common
place, as the ways in which different systems fit different people is gradually more
and more understood. In time, as client awareness of astrology goes, those with the
knowledge may even be asked to choose for themselves which system they would
prefer.

Astrology used properly can be shown to be a first class psychological tool.

Experimentation with different house systems in order to find the one that best 'fits' the

individual's own environmental circumstances, can only make it more accurate in its
predictive abilities too.