House Interpretation Without a Planet Present

1
I have tried to articulate this question many times before and I would like to finally give this a try. What I am trying to determine is how to interpret Houses?especially using Whole Sign Houses?when no planet is present.

Here?s the basic issue: so much of our focus is on planets in signs and in houses and their configurations (e.g. aspects) to one another and other points in the chart (the Ascendant).

So for charts that have planets in signs and houses, it seems clear how to delineate?or at least much more clear.

But what about the other houses and signs in which there are no planets or configurations? Are we to disregard or ignore those? I would think not?but then what and how are we to interpret them?

Are we then to interpret those houses based on the signs that they are in?

Here is an example.

Obviously everyone has a 10th house (e.g., career, public life) and an 11th House (e.g., friendships). Let?s say that Scorpio rules the 10th and Sagittarius rules the 11th. But what if there are no planets in either?

Are we to look to the Signs that govern those houses in a particular chart and interpret based on the essential meanings of those Signs?and nothing more?

So Scorpio in the 10th could mean intensity of focus on career and public life and Sagittarius in the 11th meaning enthusiastic and out-going friendships?EVEN though there is no planet present?

Or are we then to also look at the planets that govern those signs? And are we to look at the condition of those planets, colored as they are by the signs and conditions that they happen to be in?

So then are we to look at where Mars is and its condition for 10th House Scorpio, and Jupiter for 11th House Sagittarius?

Or should we do both? ?look at the Signs that govern the houses in a particular chart, and then also look to the ?governing? planets (and perhaps their conditions).

After the above analysis is done, the next question, is likely to be whether the presence of planets in a certain house in the chart then indicates a life emphasis in the subject matter of that house?and that, compared to the houses that do NOT have planets, the areas of life that DO have planets will be emphasized in life. Conversely, the presence of a planet in a House may not necessarily mean that that area of life is emphasized at all?just that the planet influences how that area of life represented by the house is experienced.

I hope I have articulated this question well enough. In so many charts, houses are ?devoid? of planets, and that creates an illusion that there is nothing going on in them?I just don?t think that is true, but I do not know how to begin to interpret in such situations.

Thanks in advance to all.

JP

Re: House Interpretation Without a Planet Present

2
hi jp,


sometimes i like to think of an idea i was presented with somewhere along the way of how one can look at planets, signs, houses and aspects reflecting the elements in a way.. fire an element of energy and vitality is captured through the planets which have a certain type of energy in whatever area they are located. the zodiac signs are like water that pours into whatever planet or house they happen to be. the houses are the place on earth where events manifest in a real sense, while aspects are like the air that bring planets together that aren't obviously connected other then by geometry. it is a fun idea anyway.. fire - planets, water - signs, earth - houses, and air - aspects.

to your question. the planet that rules over the house is said to have great bearing over the matters connected to the house. using your example - scorpio on the midheaven with no planets in the 10th means one needs to understand the nature of mars by house and sign position, along with important aspects to mars, to understand how matters directly related to the 10th house will manifest. all of these factors combined will have great bearing on issues involving the midheaven. it is the same for any of the other houses that don't have planets in them. one goes to the planet which is the ruler of the house and studies it's position by house/sign and aspects to other planets to formulate an idea of how issues connected to any particular house will manifest.

if a planet happens to be located in a particular house, or sign it will highlight this house and sign a particular way in keeping with the meaning of the house and sign.

using your example again - midheaven in scorpio but no planet in scorpio? or, no planet in the box generally referred to as box 10? whole sign/houses would consider any planet in the sign scorpio as having some bearing on the scorpio midheaven. that might be one distinction that wouldn't be as meaningful to the more common readings of placidus or quadrant based house systems.

the fact certain houses have no planets in them is not a big deal. it would imply less of an immediate focal point in some respects if you think of planets are being the energy that invigorate a particular area of the chart by house. i think this is jb morins general view.. as i understand his viewpoint, a planet in a house is more significant then the ruler of the house. these are factors that get treated differently by different astrologers, but overall i like morins viewpoint, or this viewpoint i am articulating at present.

hopefully this makes sense to you and helps answer your question/s in some way.

JPskyman wrote:
But what about the other houses and signs in which there are no planets or configurations? Are we to disregard or ignore those? I would think not?but then what and how are we to interpret them?

Are we then to interpret those houses based on the signs that they are in?

Here is an example.

Obviously everyone has a 10th house (e.g., career, public life) and an 11th House (e.g., friendships). Let?s say that Scorpio rules the 10th and Sagittarius rules the 11th. But what if there are no planets in either?

Are we to look to the Signs that govern those houses in a particular chart and interpret based on the essential meanings of those Signs?and nothing more?

So Scorpio in the 10th could mean intensity of focus on career and public life and Sagittarius in the 11th meaning enthusiastic and out-going friendships?EVEN though there is no planet present?

Or are we then to also look at the planets that govern those signs? And are we to look at the condition of those planets, colored as they are by the signs and conditions that they happen to be in?

So then are we to look at where Mars is and its condition for 10th House Scorpio, and Jupiter for 11th House Sagittarius?

Or should we do both? ?look at the Signs that govern the houses in a particular chart, and then also look to the ?governing? planets (and perhaps their conditions).

After the above analysis is done, the next question, is likely to be whether the presence of planets in a certain house in the chart then indicates a life emphasis in the subject matter of that house?and that, compared to the houses that do NOT have planets, the areas of life that DO have planets will be emphasized in life. Conversely, the presence of a planet in a House may not necessarily mean that that area of life is emphasized at all?just that the planet influences how that area of life represented by the house is experienced.

I hope I have articulated this question well enough. In so many charts, houses are ?devoid? of planets, and that creates an illusion that there is nothing going on in them?I just don?t think that is true, but I do not know how to begin to interpret in such situations.

Thanks in advance to all.

JP

3
Thanks for the thoughtful response, James! As always, you helped out a lot!

I will look to the domicile ruler of whatever sign occupies the house, and then interpret from there. At least I have a way of looking at charts where there are so many empty places--for that I am grateful!

As an aside, but still dealing with Houses, I still have a hard time accepting the house "meanings." Deb Houlding's book is great--and really explains the symmetry and elegance of traditional house systems. But I still think that the meanings of houses are just, well, too specific. For example, if there are lots of planets in the 7th house, it is natural to assume that there will an intense focus in life on marriage and other relationships. Or in the 8th on death and inheritances. Or the 5th on children, etc...

I know that there are other potential meanings, and modern astrology has made considerable changes to some of them (the horrible 8th getting all sorts of stuff related to sex and transformation), but of all the components of astrological symbolism, the house meanings seem to leave the least amount of room for interpretation and seem most apt to 'concretize' the symbolism. At that point, they seem to just 'miss' more often than any other part of the symbolism.

But--thanks to your response--at least I have a better idea of how to work through a chart that only has planets in a few places--with planets empty in 8 or 9 other houses.

JP

4
JPskyman wrote:I know that there are other potential meanings, and modern astrology has made considerable changes to some of them (the horrible 8th getting all sorts of stuff related to sex and transformation), but of all the components of astrological symbolism, the house meanings seem to leave the least amount of room for interpretation and seem most apt to 'concretize' the symbolism. At that point, they seem to just 'miss' more often than any other part of the symbolism.
This is a good point and it is one of the reasons that I don't use house rulerships as the be-all and end-all of my delineations. For example, I would look to Venus - her own condition and that of her rulers' - and the Lot of Marriage and its lord(s) before I even, if at all, look at the 7th house/sign for marriage. Same with Jupiter and children. Too many times I have seen an over-reliance on house rulerships lead to erroneous predictions and I really needed to figure out why. My conclusion, for what it's worth, is that house rulerships are to delineation what transits are to timing.
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

5
Thanks Konrad. Great points, and, yes, I think I largely agree with you.

I think James was helping me figure out what to do with 'empty houses' and how to go forward interpreting them without planets being there to provide a piece of the puzzle.

My issue is when there are charts that put, say, 2 planets in the 7th, and nothing in, say, the 11th--one would assume to interpret as "Well, marriage and relationships are SO important to this native; while friendships and other platonic relationships are deemphasized." I know at least two charts with such configurations and they 'miss' entirely.

Your point--on the marriage/relationship example--to look to Venus and its placement, sign, house, dignity, etc is entirely valid, compared looking to domicile rulership alone. But I guess I would just think that it risks a problem--putting all or too much emphasis on the PLANETS (and their features, conditions, aspects, etc), and ignoring the Houses--I would hope that we can somehow glean SOMETHING, at least, from a planet-less House--e.g. the Sign, that Sign's domicile lord--to help in interpretation with those house topics and meanings--even as I get frustrated by their specificity!

6
It is important to look at the domicile or exaltation lord of each house whether planets are present or not as the domicile lord is generally responsible for the results that place produces. It is true that a lack of planets in a house will usually cause a lack of focus on the topics that house represents, but an important piece that has been forgotten here is that planets cast rays into each of the places and while often a house is empty, it is rarely the case that a house remains "unseen" (unaspected). In the Hellenistic literature, there are statements about planets making testimony to the domicile lord and planets witnessing certain things happening in certain places (houses). For instance if Mars is the domicile lord of the 10th (what Valens attributes to praxis/work), if the chart is diurnal, then before hand we see difficulty in career because Mars is a "lawyer" for the opposition. If Jupiter casts a trine ray into the 10th house, he sees good in career and if also in aspect to Mars, then will give testimony to Mars about what he sees. If for example Jupiter is square Mars, then there is heated debate/tension (their posture or "figure" is more rigid) between the two planets, but Jupiter often helps break the malice of Mars being ruler of the 10th and contrary to sect. If however Mars had been of the sect (nocturnal chart) then Jupiter is contrary to sect. Jupiter is still a benefic but the difference is that the good that Jupiter proposes ultimately has a flaw that causes the career to be off course or the path as not being right for the native. In this case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions by something that is generally seen as good.

The extent to which planets cast rays into a given topic (house) and whether they also see the domicile or exaltation lord allows you to judge which testimony and witnesses are the most relevant. It can even be the case that the lawyer usually assigned to a given planet defers to another lawyer more suited to handle the issue. This happens when the exaltation lord has firmer control over a given topic and when the domicile lord falls amiss or happens to be in a place where it cannot witness the place that it represents (the domicile lord should cast a ray into the place it represents indicating that it does not ignore that topic). For example, if Pisces rules the 10th and Jupiter is in Aquarius in the 9th, but Venus happens to be in Cancer or Pisces, Taurus, etc, then Venus would be the preferred lawyer to listen to.

It's too bad that these ideas are still not widely understood amongst many astrologers since this transmission came out about a decade ago. It is clear if you read Valens that this kind of metaphorical thinking was typical during that era. Due to sociological circumstances, these understandings passed out of transmission. It is NOT due to it not working as some have said erroneously. It takes a while to get a handle on what you're looking at, but such metaphors allow for one to listen in to the conversation happening in the cosmos. These ideas are based upon Robert Schmidt's translation of the Greek texts.
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

7
Konrad wrote:
JPskyman wrote:I know that there are other potential meanings, and modern astrology has made considerable changes to some of them (the horrible 8th getting all sorts of stuff related to sex and transformation), but of all the components of astrological symbolism, the house meanings seem to leave the least amount of room for interpretation and seem most apt to 'concretize' the symbolism. At that point, they seem to just 'miss' more often than any other part of the symbolism.
This is a good point and it is one of the reasons that I don't use house rulerships as the be-all and end-all of my delineations. For example, I would look to Venus - her own condition and that of her rulers' - and the Lot of Marriage and its lord(s) before I even, if at all, look at the 7th house/sign for marriage. Same with Jupiter and children. Too many times I have seen an over-reliance on house rulerships lead to erroneous predictions and I really needed to figure out why. My conclusion, for what it's worth, is that house rulerships are to delineation what transits are to timing.
Yes agreed. What I outlined above is one of a number of topical techniques but general signification and lots should also be considered. What ruler has control of a given house is generally known as "local determination".
Curtis Manwaring
Zoidiasoft Technologies, LLC

8
I was hoping I could cherry pick a pithy statement to answer this question from Book 21 of Astrologia Gallica, but I can't. Morin goes into great detail not specifically addressing this question but at least he does by inference. He discusses what the astrologer should do if a planet is located in one house, but rules another. He does not specifically state that house ruled must be empty but he does treat the subject this way.

Let's face it, this occurs in every chart whether we use the outer planets or not. There are always empty houses, and people with empty 7th houses marry, empty second houses earn money and empty 11th houses have friends. So what do we do?

Morin says we need to combine the meanings of the house occupied by the ruler with the house ruled. So ruler of the 2nd (empty) in the 7th means the native will come to some kind of wealth or income from 7th house matters. He marries money, or earns it via a partnership or lawsuit. Ruler of the 10th in the first means honors (10th house) come to the native personally. Ruler of the 11th (empty) in the 10th means the native has noteworthy friends or friends who will earn honors or engage in activities that bring honors. Ruler of the 5th in the 11th = has creative or maybe fun loving friends.

That's the bare bones. The condition of the ruler tells you the quality of the things bestowed on the empty house. Weak ruler of the 2nd in the 7th means you'll get something from the marriage or partnership, but not much. Strong ruler of the 9th in the first = highly beneficial travels.

There are other possible interpretations. Ruler of the 9th in the first might have something to do with philosophy or religion - not just travel. This is true for everything.

Morin said something like this (I can't find the exact quote), the good or bad emanating from the house depends on the condition of the ruler of the house.

Here is a simplified example from a questionable chart. Mick Jagger has an empty 2nd house and 9th. He is very wealthy and his band is known for touring all over the world. He has Leo on the ASC and on the second. The Sun is highly dignified in Leo conjunct the ASC and conjunct Jupiter the ruler of the 9th and co ruler of the 5th (Sagittarius intercepted in 5). So we have wealth recognition, creativity, and travel all neatly covered, and all but the 10th are unoccupied and the 10th is occupied by it's ruler, Mars, in the 10th but in Taurus.

Mick Jagger
July 26, 1943
6:30 AM D-BST
Dartford, England

Rated B

See Astrologia Gallica Volume 21 beginning on Page 55 Baldwin Translation.

9
i am glad some other voices have joined the conversation.

jp - i think house meanings do seem somewhat static.. and i can't help but note the parallels between the houses and the information on the signs and all this overlapping of symbolism that seems to repeat itself a number of ways. then there are the planets as general significators - venus is said to have some bearing on relationships which clearly connects with 7th houses issues, but it is modified by the sign and house position too. saturn might have something to do with a person advancing in their career (10th house issue) or not depending on it's position in the chart, or perhaps it is a general significator for death like the sun is a general significator for health and vitality - planets have meanings that seem to overlap the meanings of the houses and signs as well! if a few line up and tell you a similar thing - great! friendships could just as easily be covered by mercury as the 11th house, or the sign aquarius for example.. no one will want to tell you this, but anyone who studies astrology enough will see this message repeating itself across, planet, sign, house and aspect meanings given out traditionally or modern.

then their is the complicated issue of house systems where one astrologer will come up with a house ruler but it isn't the same ruler as another astrologer who uses a different house system. obviously using house rulers is a tricky business when one is aware of the relativity of houses.. astrologers have so many to choose from! but if you can't find an answer you might be looking for in any of that, well you can always go down the chain and consider lots, midpoints or whatever else you think might cover it.

then there is the concept of a house seeing another house of not - hellenistic concept or ptolemy concept( sounds just like ptolemiac aspect concept) that certain houses do and don't see one another.. schmidts books might have re-introduced a lot of literature from another era, but these books are prohibitively expensive and not so easy to get from my vantage point.. i've never read one of them. fortunately rileys translation of valens was made available recently and i did read that on the net.. while i did read it and have looked over it a few times since, i might seem like a bit of an oddball in not limiting myself to just one era of astrological inquiry.

the way i see it is this - you can always find some way to explain why something takes place, or is the way it is in someones life, but it is usually all after the fact. try doing it before hand in real time and see how specific it can be. i think astrologers are good at explaining things after the fact, but not so good at explaining it before hand. i include myself in this quick overview.

my belief is that their is so much overlap of symbolism in all the different areas connected with astrology that it is tricky to navigate it all and come out with a clear idea of the uniqueness of the chart or just what it might be telling us at present or into the future. i suppose the opposite of this would be to say that their isn't much that is all that unique about charts and individuals and thinking their is, is a mistake and assumption on my part! regardless, it would be nice to see astrologers commenting on charts in some type of predictive manner. (we do see this more in the horary area where one follows a set of rules and a can come to a conclusion on a particular question. interestingly some of these questions might be better answered looking at the persons natal chart, but horary astrology has a system that seems to work for those who use it.. this is a topic for another day!)

i like a lot of the different theories presented in hellenistic astrology as i do in the astrological ideas of jb morin. obviously they don't all dovetail with one another perfectly and one must find a system of understanding a chart that they feel best helps them to understand what they are looking at.. good luck in your efforts. i think we are all in the same boat! anyone who claims otherwise might just be full of it..

10
@Tom:

So do planets confer their blessings or curses to the place(s) they rule even when they are not in aspect, according to Morin?

With Mick Jagger's chart, we can interpret it another way. Since Jupiter signifies wealth (Valens: abundance/prosperity(R) ) and is in the 1st Place (and hence is angular), it causes the native to be wealthy.

11
@Tom:

So do planets confer their blessings or curses to the place(s) they rule even when they are not in aspect, according to Morin?
Yes. On page 55 he says:
"Furthermore, the action of a sign is always dependent on the nature and quality of its ruler, for it [i.e. the sign, tc] depends on it [the planet-tc]essentially since it is a sign. For if the ruler of ny sign were somehow taken away from the world that sign would no longer act as a sign, but only as a part of the primum caelum"
To place this in the context of the topic, an empty house is ruled by a sign, and a sign is ruled by a planet - period. It does not matter if that planet is in aspect to the house or any other planet. It rules the sign. Keep in mind I'm cherry picking statements in order to illustrate. Morin has a philosophy that makes this much more clear, but difficult to explain briefly. No one is obligated to accept that philosophy, but I do think one is obligated to concede that Morin does an excellent job remaining consistent with the philosophy.

With Mick Jagger's chart, we can interpret it another way. Since Jupiter signifies wealth (Valens: abundance/prosperity(R) ) and is in the 1st Place (and hence is angular), it causes the native to be wealthy.
Yes if we accept Valens and the idea of general significators generally signifying everything the could mean at all times. Morin would be less inclined to do that, but might be inclined to do that in this case, because Jupiter is in the first house and conjunct the ruler of the second, see below. He was not a fan of the indiscriminate use of general significators and for perhaps the only time in AG, favorably quotes Cardan as Cardan agrees with him on this topic. He is misunderstood as "not believing in" general significators. This is not exactly true. He believed that Jupiter signified wealth, nobility, religion, generosity etc, but that Jupiter did not signify all these things in every chart, and in fact could not. If Jupiter was in the second house, he would definitely signify wealth. Ditto if in aspect to the ruler of the second and some other ways, but not in all cases. In this case Jupiter is conjunct the Sun, ruler of the 2nd and so does signify wealth. For whole sign house fans Jupiter would also have been considered by Morin to be in conjunction with Mercury ruler of the second sign, so it works that way, too.

However if Jupiter is in, say, the third house and not in contact with anything that indicates wealth, he would not use Jupiter as an indicator of wealth in that particular chart. I have a very strong Jupiter not in the 2nd or in contact with the ruler of the 2nd and alas, I do not have great wealth. American "Robber Baron" Jay Gould has an exalted Jupiter in the second, conjunct Venus and some other good stuff and became, if not the richest man in the world, damn close to it.

This is, I think an interesting topic, but for another thread. This thread is a good topic and I don't want to detract from it

12
I have a very strong Jupiter not in the 2nd or in contact with the ruler of the 2nd and alas, I do not have great wealth.
I take that back. I'm not with it quite yet today. My Jupiter is in contact with the ruler of the 2nd, but that ruler is in so-so condition, so I'm OK financially, just not having what one would consider great wealth