Translated from the French by

 

James H. Holden, FAFA

 

ABSTRACT:

English translation of a 17th century discussion of House Division by the famous French astrologer J-B Morin (1583-1656), who explains his reasons for preferring the Regiomontanus system of House Division and his own Morinus system to the Equal House, Porphyry, Alchabitius, and Campanus systems. The translation is annotated and followed by a brief comment by the translator.

 

Statement by J.B. Morin de Villefranche

 

   Now, having been earnestly requested and urged by some of the more learned men with whom I am acquainted in this science to let go and give to the public at least some of the principal points of my Astrologia Gallica,[1] so that, by this specimen, one might be able to judge the whole piece and to wish with more ardor to see it in the light, I have finally let myself be conquered by their requests and urgings, and, having previously brought to light the Cabbala of the Twelve Houses that I discovered,[2] which proves clearly the natural properties of these houses, I have not wished to pass by Aphorism 37[3] without demonstrating that the true, unique, and natural method of domification is the Rational;[4] that it can be universal for the entire earth; and that all the other methods are false, and especially the Equal [House] method so vaunted and recommended by the Marquis de Villennes,[5] but which completely ruins his Commentary on the Centiloquy, which is built on the foundation of equal houses. Let us begin with the latter.

 

   I say then, in the first place, that the Equal Method, which divides the whole sky with respect to the person who is born into twelve equal parts by circles drawn through the poles of the ecliptic, of which the first passes through the point of the ecliptic that ascends upon the horizon, is false for three principal reasons.

 

   First, because each house is found according to this division partly above and partly below the earth, except in one case only, viz. when the poles of the ecliptic are found in the intersection of the horizon and the meridian, as can happen in the latitude of 66 degrees and 30 minutes. Now this is expressly contrary to Chapt. 11 of Book 3 of Ptolemy, on which Mr. de Villennes imposes the Equal Method, along with all those ancients who have not understood Ptolemy. For, in this chapter he distinguishes the houses that are above the earth from those which are below, and those above are named by him as the 12th, 1lth, 10th, 9th, 8th, and the 7th. And he does not want his apheta or significator of life[6] to be under the earth except in the first house, which is the house of life. But he wants it to be in houses 11, 10, 9, or 7, although he has erred in the selection and placement of his apheta as I prove in my Pratique d'astrologie; and nevertheless, in the Equal Method, the apheta could be in houses 11, 10, 9, and 7, but under the earth, since each of these houses is partly above and partly below the earth. A circumstance that would still give a good bit of work to an ignorant astronomer -- to calculate the super-terranean part of a house along with the subterranean.

 

   Second, because, with the agreement of all the astrologers convinced by experience, the beginning of each house is the strongest and most efficacious point of the house, and consequently, in the Equal Method, the degree of the ecliptic which begins the 10th house must be the strongest and most efficacious for the actions, honors, and dignities that belong to that house; that which nevertheless is found so false by experience that the partisans of the Equal Method have always been constrained to observe the degree which is encountered in the Midheaven and to direct it as the most powerful [significator] for those things, even when it was considerably elongated from the beginning of the tenth [into the ninth][7] houses to which these future things do not belong; that if such an absurdity is found for the 10th house, the same will be found for all the other houses, and nothing will be enclosed within its true and natural limits, not even the first [house], which would be riding piggyback on the second, or that one on the other. Whence it follows that very often the planets will complain of the sergeant who will not have them lodged in places suitable to their functions and will disturb their mysteries, making them at the least to serve as false prophets or significators.[8]

 

   Third, because at the arctic circle and upwards it is impossible to divide the sky into twelve houses by this method,[9] when the ecliptic is found entirely in the horizon or that it will not have any degree at the eastern horizon.[10] For what degree of the ecliptic will one take for the ASC when there is no ASC, and what degrees for the beginning of the other houses?" This method then is not universal for all the earth and consequently it cannot be true; and, as for experience, I prove so clearly the falsity of this method by many famous nativities in the 18th book of the Astrologia Gallica (Chapt. 2), that one would have to be blind not to recognize it. And the Marquis de Villennes would be obliged to admit it in his own figure in Aphorism 97.[11]

 

   Now, for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that the method of Porphyry is also false, for it divides each of the two arcs of the ecliptic which are between the horizon and the meridian, above and below the earth, into three equal parts by great circles drawn through the poles of the ecliptic. Doing this, each house will be partly above and partly below the earth, and one will be unable to divide the sky into twelve houses at the arctic circle and above as in the Equal Method.[12]

 

   It follows also that the Alchabitius method is false, for it divides each of the two semi-diurnal and semi-nocturnal arcs from the degree of the ecliptic which arises on the horizon into three equal parts by great circles drawn through the poles of the equator. Doing this, each house will still be partly above and partly below, and one will not be able to divide the sky into twelve houses at the arctic circle and above, just as with the Equal Method.[13]

 

   I could add here two others of my own invention, more reasonable and approaching the true and natural method. Namely, drawing great circles through the intersections of the horizon with the meridian on the points of the divisions of Porphyry and Alchabitius, for there would be six houses above and six below the earth, as Ptolemy would have it. But the division of the sky into twelve houses could not be made at the arctic circle and above, any more than they could be with the Equal Method, whose other absurdities I do not wish to mention here.

 

   It remains then to bring forward the method of Campanus and Gazulus, which, of all the others that are false, has the most to recommend it in the view of many astrologers who have been deceived by it, believing that they have found the bird on his nest, for this method always divides the sky into twelve equal parts by great circles drawn through the intersections of the horizon and the meridian and gives six houses above and six below the earth, imitating in this respect the Rational Method. And besides, it can be made universal for all the earth, except under the world's poles, in the same proportion that it divides the oriental half of the prime vertical, which passes through the zenith and the equinoctial point of the orient into six equal parts by the great circles mentioned above; then, by this division of the vertical, it divides the equator and finally the ecliptic in the ordinary manner by right and oblique ascensions.

 

   Now it is easy to prove that this method too is false. Firstly, because it divides the sky, which has real and influential virtue, with respect to the earth instead of dividing the earth with respect to the sky. It is a great error to base the division on a circle which is neither celestial nor real but purely imaginary and of no virtue, as is the case with this [prime] vertical and to leave in the lurch celestial circles that are real and of great virtue, such as the equator, which belongs to the primum mobile, the premier cause of all physical causes, and the ecliptic, which belongs to the starry sky and in which all the planets have their greatest virtue.

 

   Secondly, because such a vertical depends upon the equator elevated above the horizon and is posterior to it, since it must be drawn through the intersections of the equator and the horizon, consequently, the equator should[14] not have its division into celestial houses, nor its real virtues in them, from that which is posterior to it and purely imaginary.

 

   Thirdly, it is not a question of dividing the primum mobile into equal parts according to its substance, for such a division could still be made by dividing the meridian, which is on earth, into six equal parts by great circles drawn from the intersection of the equator and the horizon, which would give six houses above and six below the earth.[15] But it is a question of dividing the primum mobile into equal parts according to its proper movement from the east to the west, by means of which it transports the signs, the stars, and the planets in all the celestial houses for the generation and change of sublunar things, in such a way that we may have six houses above and six below the earth. Which same should only be done by the division of the equator, the measure and principal circle of this movement. And the division of the movement must be done with such equality that one degree of the equator does not remain longer in one house than in another throughout the earth, as is the case with the Rational Method.

 

   I may add that the division of the ecliptic by this method will come up short, like all the others, at the arctic circle, and that putting this method of Campanus to the test of experience in nativities, as I have done in the Astrologia Gallica, one will see clearly that it cannot stand. And it is not necessary to amuse oneself with the fact that has deceived the ignoramuses who have followed methods other than the Rational, namely that they have encountered some verities in their judgment. For because of the size of the twelve celestial houses, which contain the whole sky, there is no method so erroneous that it does not often have the same planet in the same house or have the same lord of that house as it would if the method were the true one.

 

   But since none of the false methods above [is acceptable],[16] and since among them the most false is the Equal [Method], which nearly always needs a vicar-general that is called the Heart of Heaven[17] to perform the function of the tenth house, which is not the case with the other methods, it remains for us then to prove and establish the Rational Method and render it universal through true and natural principles, which we may do as follows.

 

   In our Cabbala of the Houses,[18] it appears that in the natural division of the primum mobile into twelve parts or houses, with respect to a man being born or to some place an the earth, it is necessary to have some parts that rise above the horizon, others that descend beneath it, and others that pass through the midst of the sky. Now, under the world's poles, or at the equator, there is no part of the primum mobile that ascends or descends, but one half of it is perpetually above the horizon and the other perpetually beneath it, divided by the equator united at the horizon. Then, it is impossible at the world's poles to make the division of the prinum mobile into twelve houses for the celestial and astrological figure.

 

   But, as soon as one moves out from under the poles, Nature, separating the equator from the horizon, exposes to us the two principal circles necessary for such a division, namely the horizon to divide the houses which must be above the earth from those which are beneath, and the equator, of which one half is found above the earth and the other beneath, to serve for the division of the primum mobile into twelve houses.

 

   Now, of these two circles, it is not the horizon which must be divided, for each of the houses is found partly above and partly below the earth, which we have rejected above. It is then the equator, already divided by the horizon into two equal parts. But which way will its division be continued? For Nature, in this simple commencement, gives us only the two intersections of these two circles and their two poles.

 

 

   Now, drawing great circles through these intersections, they subdivide neither the equator nor the horizon. But if through the two poles of the horizon and the equator that Nature furnishes and indicates to us, one draws a great circle, which will be the meridian, it will subdivide for us the equatorial circle, which is purely celestial and of celestial virtue and influence, into four equal parts. For it is certain that Nature does not give us these two points for nothing and that it would be a transgression against the natural luminary to abandon them in order to take others purely imaginary or without a solid house, since the two poles of the equator and the ecliptic are appropriate only to this division.

 

   Now in this way, we have already in the equator four principal or cardinal points: one of them is in the east, another at mid sky or the meridian, another at the west, and another at the bottom of the sky, different in virtue because of the characteristics of the four cardinal houses at the point of which they are found, namely houses 1, 10, 7, and 4, to which, through their essential characteristics belong the risirg, vigor, decline, and destruction[19] of all that which Nature produces here below, which correspond for animals and men with life, action, marriage, and suffering, [20] as we have said in our Cabbala of the houses

 

   And because each of these four points has two others in the equator, that are of the same virtue or generic characteristic, namely those with which it is in triplicity, it follows that this actual quaternary division of the equator contains virtually the duodenary [division]; it needs only to be continued and effected through the same points where the horizon and the meridian are cut, and which have already made the quaternary and general division of the equator, for it would only be confusion to continue it through other points which would only be imaginary and without reason, as all this is proved in the Astrologia Gallica (Book 18).

 

   And so we have given the true and natural foundations of the Rational Method, which divides the equator into twelve equal parts by circles converging in a section with the horizon and the meridian, of which there are six above and six below the earth.

 

   It only remains then for us to reply to the same objection made by two kinds of persons, those who are enemies and entirely ignorant of astrology, and those who are devotees of astrology but attached to false methods of the division of the sky into twleve houses for the celestial figure. And their objection is that at the arctic circle and above the sky cannot be divided by the Rational Method when all the ecliptic is found in the horizon or in same other circle of position.

 

   As for the ignorant, no other response to them is necessary than that they are fools that want to judge and render sentence on a thing that they are ignorant of, even though they may be learned in other things. These are spirits who wish to soar here without wings and to speak of the higher secrets of natural philosophy, in order to make believe that there is nothing they don't know about it, and yet they can only speak of astrology in such a way as to make the learned laugh.

 

   But as for those astrologers who are attached to some false method, like the Marquis de Villennes with his Equal Method, for the practice of which there is no remedy at the arctic circle and above when the ecliptic is found entirely in the horizon, it is necessary to reply scientifically as follows.

 

   It is certain that the dodecatemories or signs of the zodiac are divided among themselves by circles of latitude drawn through the poles of the ecliptic, and, by consequence, extending from one pole to the other. And it is likewise certain that the Moon, for example, is the Ruler of Cancer, from one pole to the other and not just of the arc of the ecliptic that traverses this sign, although in this arc is found the greatest force of the sign, since experience makes us see that the greatest virtue of the planets is when they are in the ecliptic. And that appears from the fact that if a planet[21] is in Cancer with a north latitude of 5 or 6 degrees, the Moon does not leave off being its lord on that account. Thus, since the equator is the circle that it is principally necessary to divide and since it is divided into twelve equal parts by the six circles which distinguish the houses, it is only necessary to find in the ecliptic the longitudes of the points that divide the equator, that is to say the degrees of the ecliptic which correspond to them in longitude, and one will have the sign that commences each house, and consequently one will know the planet which is lord of the sign. And this is why the Rational Method is universal, for one can find this degree of the ecliptic for each house by the method that we have given in the 5th chapter of the 2nd section of the 18th book of the Astrologica Gallica, and one will not have any sign intercepted in the whole figure.[22] And as for the directions according to the Rational way, this method does not change them or disturb them in any way because they must be made with regard to the equator and not with regard to the ecliptic, although the arcs of directions are afterwards referred to the ecliptic for the longitude. But there is something to observe in this method, the principal of which I want to put here.

 

   It is that when the circle of position that begins a house is found cut by the equator and by the ecliptic and the two sections belong to different signs, the sign of the section of the ecliptic will indicate the principal lord of the house, and the sign of the section of the equator will indicate the second, of less importance. That which is not repugnant to experience and must not be found strange, since in all the methods it happens almost always that a house is ruled by several planets and that the one which rules the point [cusp] of the house is judged to be the principal one.[23]

 

   And when all of the ecliptic falls in the horizon, then the point where the equator and the horizon cut themselves, which is the beginning of Aries and of Libra, will indicate that Mars or Venus will rule principally at the ASC over all the other planets. And if one asks who will then be the lord of houses 12, 11, 10, 2, and 3, since all the ecliptic is in the horizon, I reply that the true lord of the house will be the planet that presides at the point of the equator cut by the circle of position of this house, and thus no difficulty will remain.[24] But in all the other methods rejected above, there will occur the same inconvenience of all the ecliptic in the horizon preventing the division of the sky and [the assignment of] the rulership of the planets in each house of the sky, if one divides some circle other than the equator[25] and if the points of these divisions are reduced to the ecliptic to find the lords of the houses, as I have done above.[26] Whence one sees that the Rational Method rendered universal, as above, must be preferred to all the others, since it is the only one that Nature indicates to us and that experience confirms above all the others.

 

   There is still something left to say, and in particular how the planets and the fixed stars are to be placed in these houses of the universal Rational Method and how [the place of] the Part of Fortune is to be found. But all this is taught in the Astrologia Gallica, and it would be too long to put it all here. Let us pass on and leave the more speculative to dream upon what I have said, for I am quite assured that they will find nothing any more solid, or any more reasonable, nor anything more approved by experience, in accordance with which I have carefully examined all the methods above, as one will see in the Astrologia Gallica

 

Commentary by James H. Holden, FAFA (Translator).

 

   Morin's main theoretical objections to the Equal House system are these: (1) it creates houses that are partly above the earth and partly below the earth, thus violating a supposed dictum of Ptolemy, and (2) its partisans continue to use the (astronomical) midheaven in calculating primary directions. To these he adds a practical objection: he has compared the house positions in a number of nativities calculated by both the Equal House and Regiomontanus methods and found that those of the latter system correspond more closely with the lives of the natives.

 

   The first of these theoretical objections rests on shaky ground. Ptolemy does not discuss house division specifically in either the Tetrabiblos or the Almagest. His only allusion to it is in Tetrabiblos iii. 10 (Robbins's ed. and trans. in the Loeb Classical Library [iii. 11 in the edition used by de Villennes and Morin]), where he defines the first aphetic place as extending from 5 degrees above the eastern horizon to 25 degrees below it and the others as being in dexter sextile, square, and trine to it, and in opposition to it, thus defining the 11th, 10th, 9th, and 7th houses. It is an established fact that Sign-House and Equal House division were standard at the time when Ptolemy wrote. His statement is in perfect agreement with the Equal House method of division. And it is hardly credible that the premier astronomer of antiquity would have devised a totally new system of house division and never bothered to mention it or to explain how to calculate the intermediate cusps.

 

   If then we assume that Ptolemy had the Equal House system in mind when he wrote Chapt. 10 of Book 3, his statement "...the whole region below the earth must, as is reasonable, be disregarded when a domination of such importance is roncerned..." must be taken to refer to the ecliptic portion of the houses, where the planets lie, and to be merely a simple way of referring to the houses above the horizon as distinguished from those below.

 

   Morin's second theoretical objection is also weak. Some astrologers who used the Equal House system did insert the astronomical midheaven as a "special point" and directed it (or directed planets to it). Cardan, for example. Morin says that if they did this, were they not ipso facto admitting that it was the cusp of the 10th house? Not at all! Many of the same astrologers calculated directions involving the Part of Fortune. It was not used to define a house cusp. The astronomical MC could be handled in the same way: a calculated point with astrological significance.

 

   Morin's practical objection is possibly more valid. The only way the question can be settled is by comparing the results obtained by two or more systems and determining which one gives the best results. Morin did this and found in favor of the Regiomontanus system. Others have obtained different results. The suspicion of favoritism always arises, Still, we have here the testimony of a competent astrologer. One vote for Regiomontanus!

 

Finally, it is interesting to read Placidus's statement about his method of house division. He says that his system (and his alone) is in accordance with what Ptolemy really had in mind:

 

51. The twelve houses or mansions in heaven, authors divide several ways, but they all disagree. Rejecting the opinion of them all, we, with Ptolemy, distinguish them by the two temporal hours; for so it is, that there is proportional and equal division, not indeed of the heavenly and aerial space, but of the successive influx of the stars and houses; and the Mundane rays appear equal and proportional. But it is our opinion, that the division of the houses, by great circles passing through the common sections of the horizon and meridian, and the twelve equal divisions of the equator, which late authors make use of, are, of all, the most remote from and abhorrent to natural truth.[27]

 

   With this and other statements, Placidus trod heavily on the Frenchman's toes. For not only did Placidus totally reject dividing the houses by circles of position through the equator, but he also stated that he never bothered with solar and lunar revolutions. His books appeared too close to the end of Morin's life for Morin to mount a full-fledged attack against him, but he did tack on a brief comment at the end of a chapter on revolutions:

 

Astrologia Gallica.

 

Book 23, Chapt. 17.

[p. 663, col. 2]

 

   Besides which incidentally I caution [you] to take note that from these [solar and lunar revolutions] I have demonstrated how false and erroneous is that new doctrine of Didacus Prittus Pelusiensis [Placidus] in his Astrological Theses,[28] where not only did he reject the circles of position in erecting figures and directing significators, but, over and above that, revolutions both annual and monthly, which he does not even consider in his judgments.[29] He promises demonstrations of his own doctrine, which are expected not as demonstrations of verity (as I easily infer from his Theses), but as demonstrations of his own hallucination, which, if I am not mistaken, having been made wiser he will suppress.

 

   Well, it didn't work out that way. The Regiomontanus system remained the predominant system until the end of the 17th century. But in England, John Partridge (1644-1715) adopted the Placidian system, although he outraged most of his fellow astrologers by doing so. On the Continent, astrology practically died out. During the 18th century it clung to life in England through the annual almanacs. And when it began to flourish again towards the end of that century, Manoah Sibly (1757-1840) published translations of Placidus's works and his brother Ebenezer Sibly (1752-1779) used the Placidian system, after which it became standard in England. A century later, the Continental revival astrologers adopted the current English standard.[30]

 

   Thus, the Regiomontanus system effectively died in the 17th century to be replaced in the 19th by the system of Placidus. In the 20th century, we have seen a resurgence of the Equal House system in England, an abortive effort to revive the Campanus system, and the invention of two new systems, the Koch in Germany and the Topocentric in Argentina, neither of which makes any claim to be Ptolemaic. Certainly a turn of events that none of the 17th century astrologers could have foreseen.

   Still, each system has proponents that claim near infallibility for their favorite. Obviously, most of them are mistaken.

REFERENCES

 

Holden, James H.

"Ancient House Division."

Journal of Research of the American Federation of Astrologers 1 (1982): 19-28.

 

Holden, James H.

"House Division II."

Journal of Research of the American Federation of Astrologers 5, no. 2 (Winter 1989): 33-51.

 

Holden, James H. & Hughes, Robert A.

Astrological Pioneers of America.

Tempe, Az.: AFA Inc., 1988.

(a biographical dictionary of American and selected foreign astrologers)

 

Holden, Ralph William

The Elements of House Division.

Romford, Essex: L.N. Fowler & Co., 1977.

 

Morin, Jean Baptiste

Astrologia Gallica. [French Astrology]

The Hague: A. Vlacq, 1661.

 

Morin, Jean Baptiste

Astrologicarum domorum cabala detecta a Joanne Baptista Morino ....

[The Cabbala of the Astrological Houses, Discovered by Jean Baptiste Morin .…]

Paris: J. Moreau, 1623.

 

Remarques Astrologiques ....

Paris: Pierre Menard, 1657. 1st ed,

Paris: Retz, 1976. 2nd ed.

(with an intro., notes, and bibliography by Jacques Halbronn)

 

Ptolemy, Claudius

 Tetrabiblos.

Ed. & trans. by F.E Robbins Loeb Classical Library

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1940.

 

Sibly, Ebenezer

A New and Complete Illustration of the Occult Sciences ...

London, 1787. 1st ed.

 

Sibly, Manoah

Supplement to Placidus de Titus, containing the Nativity of

Oliver Cromwell, calculated by Mr. John Partridge, M.D.; to

which is prefixed Primum Mobile, or a com plete set of Tables.

London, 1790.

 

Titis, Placido de

Astronomy and Elementary Philosophy,

translated from the Latin of Placidus de Titus ...

[by Manoah Sibly].

London, 1789.

Titis, Placido de

A Collection of Thirty Remarkable Nativities ...

translated from the Latin ...

[by Manoah Sibly].

London, 1789.

 

Titis, Placido de

Primum Mobile.

Trans. by John Cooper

London: Davis & Dickson, (1814).

Bromley, Kent: The Institute For the Study of Cycles in World Affairs, 1983.

(repr. in facs. with an intro. and bibliography by Michael Baigent)

 

 

NOTE: This document is a transcript of  a paper published in the A.F.A. Journal of Research 6, no. 2 (Winter 1990): 19-35.