26
I love to see that you can enjoy yourself in the 'deep South' Martin :D

Since it is a 2D representation of a 3D, my preference goes for the round one, with or without the aspects as it is closer to the Ecliptic representation.
With the aspects, I used to draw the soft aspects in blue and the hard ones in red. Minor aspects dotted. Quincunx in green. (Artistic fiber!)

The only ones I find peculiar are the Indian charts where they put the ASC in a corner somewhere, not going with the directions (E,W,N,S) but I have to admit it is due to a lack of practice. Maybe Martin you can briefly explain why they choose this representation.

Deborah - Alternative to 'Proportional' = Uneven as opposed to Even Houses.
Blessings!

27
Ouranos wrote:The only ones I find peculiar are the Indian charts where they put the ASC in a corner somewhere, not going with the directions (E,W,N,S) but I have to admit it is due to a lack of practice. Maybe Martin you can briefly explain why they choose this representation.
I was just discussing this with someone a couple of days ago, and no, I'm afraid I don't know the historical background of the South Indian charts. As they clearly don't depict the observable sky, I could speculate that they were derived from some indigenous, non-astrological form of divination, but that's just a guess.

In the rest of India, the charts used are similar to those of the Greek, Arabic and Latin traditions (except that they are often rotated 90 degrees to put the east on top, as in traditional Indian maps). Here is an image comparing three common Indian styles:
https://vedicastrologylessons.com/wp-co ... -style.png
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

29
I love the Medieval square charts, but I love the Hellenistic charts even more - the picture that Martin showed that says "East Indian" is actually Ancient/Hellenistic and seen on the pictures that Deb shared earlier in this thread. This same chart type is called by some Indians "Oriya". Like the square chart, it helps see the stakes, which of course are the most important houses in the chart.

As for the South Indian chart format, it was adopted by the Emperor Astrology branch (aka ZWDS) of Chinese Astrology.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

30
Round charts have always seemed the most natural to me; it is the celestial "sphere" we are looking at and the sphere at the moment of birth that gets "fixed". It also makes perfect sense for whole sign houses, have always thought the square charts became a fixture once the majority of astrologers began to focus on the angles and quadrants as the foundation of the chart versus the sphere itself. And I remember seeing pictures (for the life of me can't remember where) of early Greek graffiti that showed circular charts scratched into the walls of buildings.

Oddly, I only have one astrology book that uses proportional charts, a beginners book from 1976 "Chart Your Own Horoscope" by Ursula Lewis. The reprints I own of older books (pre-1900) all have square charts.

Margaret Hone, in her "Modern Textbook of Astrology" 1951 (1975 reprint) includes an example of the "Continental Method" of drawing Placidus cusps "showing the unequal houses in their exact sizes in regard to the ecliptic" (p.140) (which I think is what you mean by "proportional") so perhaps they did first come into use "on the continent" possibly in France.

31
It is precisely because round charts are not as suitable for whole sign houses that I dislike them. Round charts do not differentiate between the angular, succedent and cadent houses, which is a big disadvantage.

You will notice that Schmidt and Hand chose to display not a round chart in the translation of Valens but the Hellenistic type chart I mentioned above, and the reason is precisely of the whole sign houses Valens was using and the stakes being immediately visible. Zoller also never taught to use round charts.

Likewise in India they use a square chart that emphasizes the stakes. Another reason they use the square chart in India is because the square is the most stable geometric form, as Jyotishis explain.

On the other hand, I don't find the Hellenistic or square chart to be as handy when it comes to dynamic strength, degrees of the angles, primary directions, visualizing the sky, etc. Thus each chart format has its use and every astrologer has his/her preference.
Ancient and Chinese Astrology:

https://www.100percentastrology.com/

32
janegca wrote:And I remember seeing pictures (for the life of me can't remember where) of early Greek graffiti that showed circular charts scratched into the walls of buildings.
Do you perhaps mean this one (not graffiti, but from a papyrus manuscript)?
https://archive.org/details/greek-horos ... 3/mode/2up
Round charts have always seemed the most natural to me; it is the celestial "sphere" we are looking at and the sphere at the moment of birth that gets "fixed". It also makes perfect sense for whole sign houses, have always thought the square charts became a fixture once the majority of astrologers began to focus on the angles and quadrants as the foundation of the chart versus the sphere itself.
Round charts are a more natural way to depict a sphere, of course. But what do you mean about astrologers not originally focusing on the angles? The relationship of the planets and zodiacal signs with the angles (most importantly, the horizon) is precisely what a chart is meant to show, and arguably what horoscopic astrology is fundamentally about. In the round chart I just linked to, you have a cross showing the four angles, with the names of the signs written inside the chart and the planets outside it. The sphere isn't the zodiac; the zodiac and all the planets in it rotate within the sphere, crossing the angles in turn.

(As for the historical evidence concerning whole-sign houses, I hope soon to have a paper of mine on that topic published and will post a link when that happens. Academic publishing is a very slow process, unfortunately.)
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

33
Hi Martin….
Do you perhaps mean this one (not graffiti, but from a papyrus manuscript)?
https://archive.org/details/greek-horos ... 3/mode/2up
I have seen those but, no, somewhere I saw pictures of actual graffiti of chart drawings among other Greek graffiti on old city walls. I may eventually remember where.
Round charts are a more natural way to depict a sphere, of course. But what do you mean about astrologers not originally focusing on the angles? The relationship of the planets and zodiacal signs with the angles (most importantly, the horizon) is precisely what a chart is meant to show, and arguably what horoscopic astrology is fundamentally about. In the round chart I just linked to, you have a cross showing the four angles, with the names of the signs written inside the chart and the planets outside it. The sphere isn't the zodiac; the zodiac and all the planets in it rotate within the sphere, crossing the angles in turn.

(As for the historical evidence concerning whole-sign houses, I hope soon to have a paper of mine on that topic published and will post a link when that happens. Academic publishing is a very slow process, unfortunately.)
Yes, the angles have always been important but it struck me that astrologers became more and more concerned with the calculation of the angles, the houses, how to move them, how to locate planets in them, etc. and so they became visually emphasized over the circle. Also, squares are just easier to draw and may have been easier for printers to reproduce.

I tend to use whole sign, Placidus, and equal houses (which I think are an artifact of protections, along with derived houses). Looking forward to reading your paper.

34
janegca wrote:Yes, the angles have always been important but it struck me that astrologers became more and more concerned with the calculation of the angles, the houses, how to move them, how to locate planets in them, etc. and so they became visually emphasized over the circle.
I can't recall seeing any evidence (textual or in the form of diagrams, etc.) actually pointing that way, so I'd be interested to know if you or others have. Advances in mathematics during the medieval and early modern periods did affect astrology in different ways, including new house systems being invented, but that doesn't mean the angles or the houses were less important in the early days of astrology.
Also, squares are just easier to draw and may have been easier for printers to reproduce.
Yes, the first part is certainly true. Astrology had already been around for some 1500 years before the first books on it were printed, so conventions were well established by then.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/