Barleywine
Conventional, late-20th-century astrological wisdom (at least as I learned it in the early '70s) held that the T-square aspect pattern is something like a "drawn bow," with the apex planet a kind of arrow aimed at the empty leg of the configuration. It was supposed that the energy of the complex will manifest in the empty house when the apex planet is activated by transits or directions, as a "release" or "discharge" of the tension inherent in the T-Square. Recently, more traditional-minded writers have observed that nothing overt will happen by transit or direction in a house not actually containing the planets involved (and, it should be added, where the Lord of the house is also not involved). Therefore, the house containing the activated apex planet should be looked to for any observable effects. Personally I've never seen the "drawn bow" scenario work to my satisfaction, so I've been leaning toward the latter model. Any thoughts or opinions on this?
ETA: My question caused some confusion on one of the astrological forums, so I rephrased it as follows: I'm asking a philosophical question about general principles, not a specific question about a particular chart interpretation. As a general rule, do you follow the practice of treating the empty leg of a T-square pattern as the location (i.e. the affairs represented by that house) for expression of the pattern's "stored energy" (for lack of a better term), such as when a transiting planet passes over the point opposite the apex planet? I've been at this for four decades now and have never seen that work very well.
Traditionalist Kevin Burk makes brief mention of this on page 279 of his book, "A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation," as follows: "Some astrologers consider this point (the point opposite the apex planet) to be the 'release point' of the T-square." He, on the other hand, believes the house containing the apex (or "focus") planet, and secondarily the house locations of the other two planets in the pattern, to be the active zones for expression of the energy. He sees awareness of the point opposite the apex as "an anchor of sorts, and a reference point to ensure that the path and direction of the action taken is true."
Unfortunately, without a fair amount of digging into my library, I can't say for sure who "some astrologers" are, but I remember it being part of the standard curriculum when I was first learning.
__________________
ETA: My question caused some confusion on one of the astrological forums, so I rephrased it as follows: I'm asking a philosophical question about general principles, not a specific question about a particular chart interpretation. As a general rule, do you follow the practice of treating the empty leg of a T-square pattern as the location (i.e. the affairs represented by that house) for expression of the pattern's "stored energy" (for lack of a better term), such as when a transiting planet passes over the point opposite the apex planet? I've been at this for four decades now and have never seen that work very well.
Traditionalist Kevin Burk makes brief mention of this on page 279 of his book, "A Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation," as follows: "Some astrologers consider this point (the point opposite the apex planet) to be the 'release point' of the T-square." He, on the other hand, believes the house containing the apex (or "focus") planet, and secondarily the house locations of the other two planets in the pattern, to be the active zones for expression of the energy. He sees awareness of the point opposite the apex as "an anchor of sorts, and a reference point to ensure that the path and direction of the action taken is true."
Unfortunately, without a fair amount of digging into my library, I can't say for sure who "some astrologers" are, but I remember it being part of the standard curriculum when I was first learning.
__________________