Astrology for extreme latitudes

I did a search here in the forum, and could not find any thread specifically about this... problem.

I was doing some random natal charts, with different latitudes and longitudes, to use them as exercise. I knew about the problems a Placidean chart made for latitudes greater than 66°N or 66°S could have, so I decide to do one and see what I got. Here is a picture of the chart (I used astro.com because I still don't have a good astrology software).

As expected, the houses look very disproportionate, which I believe makes the interpretation a bit weird... but not impossible! I wonder, however, when people - lets say, researchers who live very close to the Poles - start to have kids in such places, how will we do charts for them. Because the 1-2-3 and 7-8-9 houses will disappear!

I did some research, and read that some people switch to the Equal House system when dealing with these specific cases. And it arose three questions:

1) If the Equal House system works anywhere on Earth, why not use it all the time? Why use Placidus, Koch, etc?

2) For those who happen to switch to Equal House when doing charts for extreme latitudes - do you notice any difference in your accuracy?

3) Aside from the Equal House, is there any other way to do charts for extreme Latitudes? I ask this because I wonder if we shouldn't take into consideration factors like the Midnight Sun and the Midwinter Night, that change the way the sun rises in these places at times of the year. Just switching to Equal Houses doesn't seem like a real solution.

This site teaches a Topocentric method, but I confess it confused me more than it enlightened me. I blame that entirely on my own lack of experience with Astrology in general.

This site also gives an alternative to doing polar charts - but it does not solve the house problem, in my opinion.


I anyone can answer my questions or share a different method/opinion/vision... thank you in advance!

Brief observations on houses and extreme latitude

The nature of spherical geometry and astronomical-astrological depiction of quadrant type houses is that (I quote here from "Tools of Astrology: Houses" by Dona Marie Lorenz) every method of house division using the ascendant as the zero point becomes undefined at the latitudes of the polar circles. At 67 1/2 degrees North at 18 hours sidereal time (and at 67 1/2 degrees South at 6 hours sidereal time) the ecliptic and horizon coincide, and the ascendant is undefined.

What this means is that above the polar circle all methods of house definition and division, except those that are latitude independent, require all kinds of additional manipulatiom -- all of which is hard to explain or justify from astrological principles.

My suggestion, and I know of no others who have advocated this, is to use an equal house system oriented relative to the MC value which can be derived from the sidereal time or RAMC for the longitude of birth or of the event. Keep in mind that when you get quite close to the poles, all points can technically become the MC --- perhaps one cannot define a chart in a typical manner when within 3, 4, or 5 degrees of the two poles. I have done very few (two?) charts for extreme latitudes. Dave

My mother was born at ~65*N. I just did her chart w/ Astrodienst and I can see what you mean about the disproportionate sizes of the houses. I reviewed mine - and I was a born a bit south of her at 62*N and while there is some differing sizes, it isn't as pronounced as her's.

Very interesting, indeed.

Dave's right, in that ALL quadrant systems, that use the Ascendant as the origin and the MC as the tenth cusp fail in the polar regions. Like Dave I use a quadrant system for my Astrology (Regiomontanus) but I do recognise that other House Systems are equally valid in all cases but especially in this one.

Equal Houses is the obvious alternative, but I would probably choose Whole Signs (as used by Hellenestic Astrologers and still used by Vedic Astrologers). The reason that I would choose Whole Signs is that they have a proven pedigree and are still in regular use, albeit in another branch of Astrology.

However,there's no reason why a chart should have to start at the Ascendant, and the Greeks cast charts based on the Lot of Fortune or other Lots, for specific work. Dave's idea of using the MC as the origin of the chart is also fine, though in effect it would yield equal Houses based on the degree of the MC, rather than equal houses based on the degree of the Ascendant. I think Dave would argue that at these latitudes the MC is a more valid Astronomical measure than the Ascendant, and there is a strong case for that.

Which you use comes down to two things, your own personal preferences and the ability of your software to switch between House systems.

A comment or question

Minderwiz, can you clarify your view of the use of whole signs for extreme latitudes? With the significan distortion in so many cases, it would seem possible (likely?) that one whole sign might cover two or three house-zones --- while another whole sign might not come close to covering a single house. It is often tough to work with these charts. It is even tougher to make a solid case for any choice we make. Perhaps we should forbid people to be born at high latitudes. No? Dave

PS, I do think the case for using the MC to orient an equal house chart has more favorable points going for it then other approaches. Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

Minderwiz, can you clarify your view of the use of whole signs for extreme latitudes? With the significan distortion in so many cases, it would seem possible (likely?) that one whole sign might cover two or three house-zones --- while another whole sign might not come close to covering a single house. It is often tough to work with these charts. It is even tougher to make a solid case for any choice we make. Perhaps we should forbid people to be born at high latitudes. No? Dave

PS, I do think the case for using the MC to orient an equal house chart has more favorable points going for it then other approaches. Dave

Click to expand...

I went and looked at my Mom's chart...to see if there were multi-house signs and multi-sign houses... She was born about 130 miles south of the Arctic Circle.

And sure enough.... Her 10th, 11th, and 12th houses are in Scorpio, 4th, 5th, 6th are in Taurus. And 2nd and 8th houses each cover 3 signs each.

For a very, very beginner like me, that is quite unnerving. I was born a bit south of her, but my chart also has some interesting distributions.

Chiska

Mark up your chart using the MC for the 10th house cusp and making all of the other houses "equal houses". How does this change the way you read your chart? Dave

dadsnook2000 said:

Minderwiz, can you clarify your view of the use of whole signs for extreme latitudes? With the significan distortion in so many cases, it would seem possible (likely?) that one whole sign might cover two or three house-zones --- while another whole sign might not come close to covering a single house. It is often tough to work with these charts. It is even tougher to make a solid case for any choice we make. Perhaps we should forbid people to be born at high latitudes. No? Dave

PS, I do think the case for using the MC to orient an equal house chart has more favorable points going for it then other approaches. Dave

Click to expand...

Dave,

At these latitudes any system is arbitrary, if we are hoping 'to relate signs to houses and all of them will fail to do this in anything like an accurate way.

If we are doing a chart for someone else and are going to share and discuss it with them and others, it must be reasonably comprehensible to them (as of course all charts must be). Changing the origin of the chart for a small gain in theoreticall accuracy is likely to confuse others and block or limit their understanding of the chart.

At these latitudes Ascendant and MC may well be in the same sign or in adjacent signs, in the former case using whole sign houses seems to me to be better than a MC based system because it combines what accuracy there is with ease of understanding by the client. In the latter case the 'loss in accuracy is more than compensated by the gain in understanding over an MC based system.

However you are probably right, we should just ban people from being born this far from the equator

dadsnook2000 said:

The nature of spherical geometry and astronomical-astrological depiction of quadrant type houses is that every method of house division using the ascendant as the zero point becomes undefined at the latitudes of the polar circles. At 67 1/2 degrees North at 18 hours sidereal time (and at 67 1/2 degrees South at 6 hours sidereal time) the ecliptic and horizon coincide, and the ascendant is undefined.

What this means is that above the polar circle all methods of house definition and division, except those that are latitude independent, require all kinds of additional manipulatiom -- all of which is hard to explain or justify from astrological principles.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I have noticed. There doesn't seem to be a method that works everywhere -- at least not a 'pure' method. All of them have to suffer rather arbitrary adaptations... This site that I mentioned before offers an adaptation of the Topocentric method, but one that can be used at all Latitudes. Perhaps it could be an alternative? As I have never worked with Topocentric houses, I suppose I'd have to learn this method first before using their calculations.

Minderwiz said:

Dave's right, in that ALL quadrant systems, that use the Ascendant as the origin and the MC as the tenth cusp fail in the polar regions. Like Dave I use a quadrant system for my Astrology (Regiomontanus) but I do recognise that other House Systems are equally valid in all cases but especially in this one.

Click to expand...

I apologize for being dense, lol, but where can I find more information on this Regiomontanus method? I don't think I ever heard of it before!

Minderwiz said:

However,there's no reason why a chart should have to start at the Ascendant, and the Greeks cast charts based on the Lot of Fortune or other Lots, for specific work. Dave's idea of using the MC as the origin of the chart is also fine, though in effect it would yield equal Houses based on the degree of the MC, rather than equal houses based on the degree of the Ascendant. I think Dave would argue that at these latitudes the MC is a more valid Astronomical measure than the Ascendant, and there is a strong case for that.

Which you use comes down to two things, your own personal preferences and the ability of your software to switch between House systems.

Click to expand...

Yes, I believe you are right. But my question remains - if starting a chart at the Lot of Fortune, or at any other place, works then why not use it for every latitude? Isn't it best for us to use a method that works everywhere? If Whole Signs/Equal Houses & other methods work, why don't we use them all the time? If it's not used, I must asume there's a catch... perhaps a loss of accuracy or something else?

Chiska said:

For a very, very beginner like me, that is quite unnerving. I was born a bit south of her, but my chart also has some interesting distributions.

Click to expand...

LOL, That's like me realizing that the Signs dignities and seasonal attributions do not make sense in the Southern Hemisphere! I share your frustration!

dadsnook2000 said:

Perhaps we should forbid people to be born at high latitudes. No? Dave

Click to expand...

Minderwiz said:

However you are probably right, we should just ban people from being born this far from the equator

Click to expand...

That is a nice idea - we could get rich creating a Astro-Stork service. "Astro-Stork: carrying carrying pregnant women to Placidus-friendly places since 2011".

But it also would give Richard Dawkins a subject for his new book. "Away from the Poles: the absolute re-debunking of Astrology".

Marina said:

I apologize for being dense, lol, but where can I find more information on this Regiomontanus method? I don't think I ever heard of it before!

Click to expand...

Regiomontanus (called after Johan Muller of Konigsburg 1436-76) is a system of quadrant houses which predates that of Placidus (called after Placidus de Titi 1603? -1668) Both achieved popularity because they were published as tables which the jobbing Astrologer could use. Those of Regiomontanus predate Placidus by around 200 years, but were in use until the end of the Seventeenth Century (and the effective death of Astrology as a wide spread practice). If the tables of Placidus were published a few years earlier, it's possible that they might have been adopted by Lilly and Morin. However that was not the case and traditional Astrologers who base their approaches on the latter two tend to use Regiomontanus houses, so that changes in house system do not affect testing their methods.

If you want to learn more about houses and house systems Skyscript has a great resource of articles

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/books.html#hb

In particular you might find this one interesting, as it covers the current topic:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/polar1.html

Marina said:

Yes, I believe you are right. But my question remains - if starting a chart at the Lot of Fortune, or at any other place, works then why not use it for every latitude? Isn't it best for us to use a method that works everywhere? If Whole Signs/Equal Houses & other methods work, why don't we use them all the time? If it's not used, I must asume there's a catch... perhaps a loss of accuracy or something else?

Click to expand...

Yes there is a 'catch' and that is at polar latitudes not all signs may rise, or rise and set in quick time. A chart which simply divides the houses into 30 degree equal segments, no matter what the starting point (including the MC will not correspond, even in an approximate way to the actual passage of signs over the Ascendant or MC. This may well mean that the 'house' meanings may be the same but the use of signs and planetary rulers may be of dubious value. So if you have no planets at all in your first house or seventh house we might not be able to say anything about 'you' or your marriage partner. If we do use the nominal signs (and hence rulers) then how much credibility can we attach to the reading? The argument for using them is that they are better than nothing.

Incidentally the use of the Part of Fortune or other Lots/Parts as the origin is something I've been meaning to explore but never got round to it. Thus casting a chart from, say the Lot of the Father, might be useful for learning much more about his life and nature. The modern approach would be to use derived houses ('turn the chart') based on the fourth House. I think the use of the Lot of the Father, might be more useful because it is specific to him, whereas the fourth encompasses a lot of other things.

Marina said:

LOL, That's like me realizing that the Signs dignities and seasonal attributions do not make sense in the Southern Hemisphere! I share your frustration!

Click to expand...

Well yes they do, though they may need adjusting or reversing in some cases.