Guest guest Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Hi Everyone, I thought you'd be intersted in this post from the NCGR list regarding Donald Bradley: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi Gloria et al, Here is an interesting note re houses from the magazine archives that I'm working with these days. Unbeknownst to me and, I suspect, most Western Siderealists, is the fact than when Donald Bradley (aka Garth Allen) wasn't doing research in Mundo (looking at exact angularity of planets) he preferred the equal house systems. I never read this anywhere in my previous research. Here is the quote from American Astrology, August 1964, p. 20 in answer to a letter: " You will do well to continue using equal-house division per (Charles E. O.)Carter and (Margaret)Hone. Except for exacting work involving the three-dimensional handling of the celestial sphere, which Campanus copes with best, we personally prefer equal division, too. [He usually used the regal " we " for some reason. It does not imply an editorial endorsement.] But always, of course, mark the degree of the Ascendant if dividing from the Midheaven, or the Midheaven degree if counting from the Ascendant. These points remain extremely sensitive apart from the house question altogether. " Bradley carried tremendous weight among siderealists, if among no one else, so this endorsement should mean something to those of that persuasion, and to others who give credence to research, since he likely tested various systems before deciding that equal divisions seemed to work best for delineations. Many siderealists tended to not use houses at all in the traditional way, looking instead at the angularity alone, as reinforced by Gauquelin's research re twelfth and ninth house strength. Best, Wayne Turner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: Hi Everyone, I thought you'd be intersted in this post from the NCGR list regarding Donald Bradley: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Hi Gloria et al, (snip) Unbeknownst to me and, I suspect, most Western Siderealists, is the fact than when Donald Bradley (aka > Garth Allen) wasn't doing research in Mundo (looking at exact > angularity of planets) he preferred the equal house systems. I never > read this anywhere in my previous research. Here is the quote from > American Astrology, August 1964, p. 20 in answer to a letter: > > " You will do well to continue using equal-house division per (Charles E. O.)Carter and (Margaret)Hone. Except for exacting work involving the three-dimensional handling of the celestial sphere, which Campanus copes with best, we personally prefer equal division, too. Wayne Turner > REPLY: I did not know that Bradley used equal houses. I do remember when I studied with Jeff Mayo (of the Faculty of Astrological Studies in London) that Equal House was advocated but not insisted upon. Back in the '70's when studying with Robert Pelletier (Planets in Aspect, Planets in Houses -- Para Research) that he exclusively worked with Equal Houses. Pelletier was an advocate of the Key Cycle and also that a planet entering a sign will also be seen as working within the house that has that sign on its cusp even though the house boundary may be 10 or 20 degrees further along. He also didn't regard the MC as anything special (as I remember) but couldn't explain why the ASC degree was important to mark the start of the Equal Houses while the MC was not important. All of that said, those of us that use Solar Arcs and cycles relative to planetary conjunctions and phase relationships should be more receptive to equal house usage. But then, as you noted, most of us who practice (or mis-use) Sidereal methods often do not use houses at all. I also do not use signs as I find too many instances where an individual will resonate with a Tropical Sign over the Sidereal Sign, or vice-versa. For me it is easier to just throw out signs. I've done a fairly extensive Sidereal tour of natal, solar return and progressed s/r daily angles on Tarot Transit relative to a test case that the Italian Butterfly (our moderator there) and I are doing so that list members can compare the results. The commentary by the chart's owner should start soon. Thanks for forwarding this interesting tid-bit on Bradely. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Bradley also strongly endorsed what he called the " Axial " system. Writing in the " Perspectives in the Sidereal " column of American Astrology magazine (Novermber 1974) he describes: <quote> .... the excellence and clarity of the Axial system of house division propounded by W. Bruce Lloyd and supported wholeheartedly by yours truly by dint of overwhelming evidence in its favor " <endquote> He goes on to give the method by which the Axial system is calculated and it turns out to be same system used by Uranian astrologers, the Meridian system. I no longer have have the original AA issue or article (Wayne, do you have it?), but pulled the information above from an old article called Uranian Astrology, a Sidereal Persepctive which was published in an now defunct journal in 1979 called The Siderealist. Anyone remember that one? Anyhow, one wonders if Bradley would have been as enthusiastic about the Axial system if he knew it was the one favored by the Hamburg school. If Ken Irving is out there maybe he can shed some light on this. , therese hamilton <eastwest wrote: > > Hi Everyone, > > I thought you'd be intersted in this post from the NCGR list regarding > Donald Bradley: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Hi Gloria et al, > Here is an interesting note re houses from the magazine archives > that I'm working with these days. Unbeknownst to me and, I suspect, > most Western Siderealists, is the fact than when Donald Bradley (aka > Garth Allen) wasn't doing research in Mundo (looking at exact > angularity of planets) he preferred the equal house systems. I never > read this anywhere in my previous research. Here is the quote from > American Astrology, August 1964, p. 20 in answer to a letter: > > " You will do well to continue using equal-house division per (Charles E. > O.)Carter and (Margaret)Hone. Except for exacting work involving the > three-dimensional handling of the celestial sphere, which Campanus > copes with best, we personally prefer equal division, too. [He > usually used the regal " we " for some reason. It does not imply an > editorial endorsement.] > > But always, of course, mark the degree of > the Ascendant if dividing from the Midheaven, or the Midheaven > degree if counting from the Ascendant. These points remain extremely > sensitive apart from the house question altogether. " Bradley carried > tremendous weight among siderealists, if among no one else, so this > endorsement should mean something to those of that persuasion, and > to others who give credence to research, since he likely tested > various systems before deciding that equal divisions seemed to work > best for delineations. > > Many siderealists tended to not use houses at > all in the traditional way, looking instead at the angularity alone, > as reinforced by Gauquelin's research re twelfth and ninth house > strength. > > Best, > Wayne Turner > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.