Thursday, November 14, 2013

Moving Astrological House

Years ago I bought a used copy of Carl Payne Tobey's book Astrology of Inner Space (Second printing, 1973). Part of the book is devoted to Mr. Tobey's theory that the astrological sign/house count popularly used, starting with Aries as the first sign, ruling 1st house, moving on via Taurus, finishing at Pisces/12th house, is open to question. He proposes Leo as the first sign, Cancer 2nd, Gemini 3rd etc. on to Virgo/12th. In his experience he says that this count has proved to be more accurate. He writes that he worked with the traditional sign/house meanings for seven years:
"It wasn't all wrong, and it wasn't all right, but there seemed something the matter with it. The cults were teaching that you must accept astrology "on faith". I wasn't about to accept anything on faith. I was testing".
A man after my own heart!

Mr Tobey was driven by a feeling that cults and esotericists had stood in the way of others determining the truth of astrology. Many observers considered that as an astrologer he was "before his time". He reveals that he read the 2000 pages of Madame Blavatsky's book Secret Doctrine and, along with his own practical astrological experience of some 50 years, an almost throw away remark in an unrelated paragraph of that book convinced him that this revised "count" was the correct one, and the one used by the ancients. Madame Blavatsky had written:
"Everybody knows that Capricorn is the 10th sign but it used to be the eighth".
The revised count isn't easy to absorb initially. I found it useful to read the chapter on Aquarius (my own Sun sign) first. Aquarius, as we know it, is the 11th sign and relates to 11th house. In Carl Payne Tobey's revised reckoning it becomes the 7th sign/house (angular, replacing Libra). Both signs are of the Air triplicity, so there are similarities anyway. The author argues that the concept of brotherhood traditionally allocated to Aquarius, has a questionable relationship to in that sign, and that the compassion and brotherly love attributed to Aquarius, in some natives, may come via Pisces, the adjacent sign where often Mercury, Venus or other personal planets may lie. He gives examples to support the theory.

Mr Tobey considered that because Aquarius thrives on change, it can become destructive when change doesn't occur. He felt that Libra's attributes, and its ruler Venus, better connect to the friendly 11th sign and house.

As for the 7th house representing marriage, he puts the idea forward that the 7th house represents the unknown, that which is still to be revealed. I suppose, because 7th lies opposite the ascendant where a personality is first "revealed", the unknown would, indeed, lie opposite. This might tie in with unexpected change, inventions, etc. represented by Aquarius's modern ruler, Uranus.

Without mentioning each sign in detail here, it's worth giving thought to this theory. For instance, moving on to Capricorn, ruled by Saturn: this would become the 8th sign rather than 10th: Saturn rules death, 8th house does too. And doesn't 8th house have connection with insurance? That's big business, which Earthy Capricorn would understand well.

Scorpio as 10th sign/house though? The house of public status and recognition, career etc. Mr Tobey considered that Scorpio has high level executive ability, and does well in politics, in the public limelight.

Virgo would, by this revised count, become 12th house in place of Pisces - which I reckon doesn't work well, it's the most difficult swap for me to accept. Pisces replacing Virgo as 6th - health issues? The addictive personality sometimes connected with Pisces is certainly UNhealthy. Pisces' traditional ruler was Jupiter (modern ruler Neptune). It is often noted that Jupiter can be found connected to time of death in a You can sense a kind of "echo" in all these exchanges, I guess.

The "Leo clockwise count" in full. Sagittarius and Gemini retain their places as 3rd and 9th sign/house:

1 Leo
2 Cancer
3 Gemini
4 Taurus
5 Aries
6 Pisces
7 Aquarius
8 Capricorn
9 Sagittarius
10 Scorpio
11 Libra
12 Virgo

This system puts the 4 Fixed signs on the angles instead of the 4 Cardinal signs.

If nothing else, Carl Payne Tobey's theory shakes the bag, encourages one to open the mind and examine a new perspective - never a bad thing.


mike said...

"it just goes to show you, it's always something--if it ain't one thing, it's another." Gilda Radner as "Roseanne Roseannadanna"

I read this somewhere before, Twilight. I can't say that it's any more or less confusing than many other things I've pondered with astrology! I originally purchased astrological software so that I could study many different house systems, progressions, etc without consuming myself with calculations.

Many years ago, with the essentials of astrology well understood by me, I thought I had it all mastered. As the years have fluttered by, I've become much, much less knowing (as with most things).

I tried to locate on the internet the original information on Leo first house. I did find Jim D'Amato's Aquarian Age Astrological Research Foundation:

There are many interesting considerations throughout this website...I read a few...I'll have to ponder all of this! I do understand the Leo first house, due to the Sun, with Cancer 2nd house, due to the Moon. Only one planet rules one sign in this system, with Gemini and Taurus have planets Z and Y.

Tobey put emphasis on planetary heliocentric nodes. There's a list of each on the link, above.

Twilight said...

mike ~ Thanks for the link - yes, I've come across Jim D'Amato's site before - some useful stuff there, but I find the design of the site a little off putting to the eye. Still, it's worth persevering. :-)

His section on the Nodes of Mars and women's problems was good - at the start, then morphed into realms a bit too far fetched for my taste.

I have problems with house divisions in general, to be honest. They rely so heavily on exact time of birth, which few people really and truly know for sure, even in the USA where times are recorded it depends on the accuracy of the nurse, doctor, clerk - and in the UK we rely on what relatives recall of the event unless lucky enough to be born into the family of an astrologer.

Also - a couple of paras from an old, early post of mine - I'm not convinced house positions matter that much (shall I wash my mouth out now? ;-)

It seems reasonable to me that when a person has a particular personality trait, as indicated by planet in sign, it is going to influence the whole of that person's personality, not only in the area dictated by strict rules of astrology. Venus in Sagittarius in 10th house, for example, is likely to influence areas other than career and public standing. A little Sagittarian flavour will be apt to permeate the whole personality.

The cosmic trio of Sun, Moon and Ascendant are said to be a quick and easy way of summing up a person's nature. That's true, I think, but only if they are allowed to blend into each other's astrological territories. It's not logical to say that the Moon influences only prescribed areas of the personality, or the ascendant sign is only the way we present ourselves to the world. I've found that these three factors (and others) blend and influence one another so strongly that it's impossible to separate them - differentiate their spheres of influence. Perhaps a psychotherapist would try. How they blend is usually described by aspects the planets make to each other, but conflicts or harmonies produced are not, in my opinion, likely to remain confined to any specific area. Sharp divisions are not natural.

Take Mercury's energy, for example. How we think, how our minds work, how we communicate intermingles with, and influences, every other part of our life. Mercury really ought to be added to the cosmic trio - Venus too. A cosmic quintet. Sun, Mercury and Venus will almost always be found within 3 consecutive zodiac signs - there is significance in this.

mike (again) said...

Ancient mankind (pagans?) had a relationship with nature that was lost, perhaps with Christianity. They were "one" with the sky and knew positions of the heavenly bodies at all times. Modern man requires the actual time of birth to construct a natal chart from an ephemeris and table of houses, but I suspect the ancients simply looked at the sky at the moment of birth and deduced the newborn's astrology.

There are two lines that remain constant when constructing a natal chart: the horizon (east=rising, west=descendent) and the vertical (north=IC, south=MC). These two lines are the same in any house system. Only in the equal house system is there a 4th & 10th house division typically different from the vertical line, but equal house inserts the MC & IC vertical line. Due to this, I am leaning more now-a-days to looking at quadrants...some Eastern astrology utilizes the quadrants.

I use Koch when I want to look at individual houses. One astrologer that I read on occasion looks at various house divisions with different house systems, then pronounces the house-overlap as the cusp between houses...a fuzzy zone belonging to both houses.

Michael Lutin has said that for some of his clients, the use of a natal chart is valid, but he has clients that the solar chart is better at describing that individual. I use both. There were several popular, but now-gone, astrologers that only used day of birth, sunrise or noon charts.

You often post charts calculated for noon of individuals without knowing their time of birth, yet it's surprising the quantity of information that can be inferred.

Twilight said...

mike ~ Yes, the ancients knew a thing or two that we've forgotten!

I definitely respect the ascendant/descendant line, not so sure about the importance midheaven and nadir, though I guess the two are interconnected.

I have a theory (mine only!) that the deeper, more complex, and the greater the number of "tools" and methods one applies, the more chance there is of the waters becoming very, very muddied. Simple is easiest for sure, but that's not important - for me it works more surely and more clearly. :-)

I realise that professional astrologers' clients demand their money's digging deeper is their MO.

James Higham said...


Which sign was Mr Tobey by the way?

Twilight said...

James Higham ~ Hi! He had natal Sun in Taurus, Moon in Capricorn, Jupiter in Aquarius with Aquarius' ruler Uranus on the ascendant.,_Carl_Payne