OK, I'll do that!

Thanks to my wonderful teachers, I've been advised at a very early stage of my Astrological studies to always make a very clear distinction between the symbolics of the houses ruled by the same planet which, pretty much correlates with what has been mentioned above- the L2 Mercury talks about the money, while that same Mercury when examined as the L11, should be considered as a representative of that sphere of life exclusively. Or, as my teacher would have probably said- Switch the light in the 2nd house and visit the 11th now.
When it comes to the overall picture and blending the symbolics into a single story, no book can help, of course,and the Astrologer will need to put all the shades of the same colour next to each other relying on his reading skills and astrological logic.

So, I'm pretty familiar with the main course of your explanations, Tom, but I'm also very excited to read all this. I've spotted your observations and examples based on Morin's studies already in some other topics and I must say- that will be my very next literature.
Thank you for sharing your impressions, it's been very contageous!

Hmm... John Frawley, I think, says that the house ruler is more important than the planet in a house. The house simply benefits or is afflicted by a planet's presence, but if we want to learn about the affairs of a house in general we should check its' ruler.

Unless I misinterpret him.

Tom wrote:Just to fill in a bit: Morin taught that location was more powerful than rulership. "More powerful" is probably not the best way to explain his point, however. If, let's say, we have Jupiter in the 4th ruling the 9th. When Jupiter is hit by a primary direction (or progression or transit) the effects of the "hit" will be felt more immediately in the 4th than in the 9th. The 9th may well be included in the effects, but the immediacy is what he was explaining.

Another thing to think about. Thanks! I really am looking forward to getting to know his approaches better.

I like the metaphor of turning out the lights in one room and turning them on in the other. I think I'll keep it.

Tom

Oh, be my guest!
Of course, assuming that you're not dyslectic like me, you'll probably put it right and say "Switch OFF/turn OUT the light!" )))), which you, basically already have


@ astropet

It's usually like that- isn't it- we have to chose from all sorts of explanations, on occasions, even contradictory ones. I used to find it very confusing at first but now I appreciate the variety of approaches I usually come across when I start an "investigation" on a certain placement, aspect...It prevents the Astrologer from becoming lazy and dull - there's always plenty of room for our brain cells which is good.

Yes, but I would have liked to find some things that everybody agreed upon for a change!

Hmm... John Frawley, I think, says that the house ruler is more important than the planet in a house. The house simply benefits or is afflicted by a planet's presence, but if we want to learn about the affairs of a house in general we should check its' ruler.

I believe he was speaking about horary here. Different animals altogether, you see?

for instance, a question about health will see usually the first house ruler. In natal astrology, a lot of factors should be observed, like the ASC, the moon, the hyleg, etc, to see the esse of your health

That?s why I think your question is more appropriate to horary. In natal, things are always more confusins. E.g, even if sun is ruling the 8th (Leo on the 8th), you would still have to consider the effect of sun ruling the 4th by exaltation. And the analogy of the sun to fame, father, etc.

I believe he was speaking about horary here

No, I don't think he was talking only about a horary rule. I think I read it in one of his Real Astrology books, though I can't be certain. Anyway, in Lilly's book about the nativities, he almost always mentions the house ruler first and the planets therein are only the third or the fourth factor to be taken into account.

Frawley is generally following Lilly and other 17th century writers more. Over time some of the the rules changed, though not as drastically as between traditional and modern.

Zoller also taught that location is more important than rulership. Zoller followed Morin and Bonatti closeley. Two different teachers two different sources.

Still, what Frawley and Lilly say makes sense, doesn't it? At least to me. If I have Cancer on a house cusp, my approach towards the affairs of that house would be cancerian and therefore the Moon will always rule them, no matter how many other planets I have there. The other planets will affect my cancerian nature, which, however, will always be the basis.

astropet wrote:Still, what Frawley and Lilly say makes sense, doesn't it? At least to me. If I have Cancer on a house cusp, my approach towards the affairs of that house would be cancerian and therefore the Moon will always rule them, no matter how many other planets I have there. The other planets will affect my cancerian nature, which, however, will always be the basis.

Actually both make sense when you think about it. The key is that you have to use the system you use to its full potential.

Reading along I was cheering for the planet located in the house as primary. It seems to make sense and also seems to be the most commonly practiced method. But the discussion took its inevitable turn to the horary practice of house ruler as primary.

In horary you often don't have a planet located in the house that you need to use for the question. Since you must use the 2nd house for money matters, for example, you will always have a significator if you use the 2nd house ruler. All these statements regarding the importance of planets located in the house might indicate the importance of using those planets as equally powerful co-significators in horary. If Mercury rules the 2nd in a money question and Mars is located in the 2nd this might be saying that Mars is much more than just an additional factor in the question, more than merely a spice adding some flavor. It might be an indication that Mercury and Mars are both are very much involved in the matter and that their relationship to each other is crucial. Mars in this case wouldn't simply be commenting on Mercury's matter, but would be actively going about its business for its own reasons ? possibly helping, possibly hindering.

I don't know. Maybe they are equal, and yet one is somehow primary ? coming first. This could work the same in natal and horary charts. It could be offering useful information regarding a starting point and that beginning's relationship to a future outcome. But I think I'm trying to work through vague memories of what I've read elsewhere in ages past. Stuffing too much into the brain, you know.