An SBAR on the 2023 Placidus vs. Whole Signs Controversy
benebell.wen
SITUATION
In early February of 2023, the old astrological house systems debate bubbled up again, but because this time some titan names were attached to the controversy, the incident gained a great deal of public attention (or at least it did among us astrology enthusiasts).
The incident involved prominent elders and some of the most authoritative voices in the field of astrology today, so this isn’t just “drama.” Not to mention the caliber of research, insights based on decades of experience that you’ll hear from both aisles of the debate, and the quality of education you’ll incidentally receive just by following the discussion means there are compelling reasons for taking note.
This “SBAR” will help you navigate the various turns in the debate, which I’m sending to you not just because it makes for great tea, but there is so much you’ll gain in terms of knowledge, understanding, and the wisdom of different perspectives that anyone interested in learning astrology will find it worth their while to follow along.
Alternatively, if you just want the TL;DR, then this is it. Even at how long and rambling this e-mail might turn out to be, the full thing is even longer and more rambling! =)
BACKGROUND
Around Feb. 4, 2023, Deborah Houlding shared a lecture, “The Sign, the Whole Sign, and Nothing But the Sign…Really?” (https://vimeo.com/765620082/7d6469fe5b) disputing the contention that Whole Signs astrologers have long held, which is that Whole Signs is the oldest form of house division and the ancestor of all subsequent house systems in Hellenistic (and Byzantine) astrology. Houlding is one of the most respected astrologers of our era, and if you learned astrology some time between the 90s and now, chances are whether you realize it or not, your understanding of astrology was in some way influenced by her work. Skyscripts is a treasure trove of astrological references (https://www.skyscript.co.uk/books.html).
In the lecture, Houlding critiques a group called Project Hindsight (http://www.projecthindsight.com/), a Hellenistic astrology revivalist group. Houlding asserts that stellar branding and marketing by a “dream team” of popular astrologers behind Project Hindsight pushed the Whole Signs house system to dominance, overshadowing Placidus.
For a great overview of the contention that Whole Signs is the oldest house system, see “Whole Sign Houses, The Oldest House System: An Ancient Method in Modern Application” (2000) by Robert Hand, http://planetwaves.net/pdf/new-wholesign-article-eric-francis-2.pdf
Houlding began the lecture acknowledging that it might be the most controversial lecture she’s ever done, and yet it must be done because, “As an astrologer preparing to ‘get off the stage’ and leave this study in the hands of a new generation,” (quoted from Houlding’s Feb. 10 public Facebook post) she wanted to set the historical record straight.
In short, Houlding believes that Whole Signs gained popularity in the last decade only, accompanied by misrepresented history, as a direct result of social media influencers. For most of her astrology career, pre-dating social media, astrologers only used Placidus. Due to the sophistication of mathematical calculations, a combination of algebra and geometry, Placidus is arguably more accurate. Whole Signs, in contrast, is an oversimplification of astrological analysis.
Then on Feb. 9, 2023, Chris Brennan livestreamed a response to Houlding’s lecture, “Deborah Houlding and Whole Sign House Denialism” (https://www.youtube.com/live/01IFZSjAoP0).
Whole Signs proponents maintain a different and oppositional perspective from Houlding’s, characterizing Placidus as the “popular” mainstream system due simply to its ease of accessibility in astrology books throughout the 70s and 80s.
Oh dear…perhaps we need some background to the background. =) Okay.
Placidus de Titis was a 17th century Italian monk, mathematician, and astrologer whose interpretation of Ptolemy (a 1st century astrologer and arguably the most important and influential Greco-Egyptian astrologer who reconciled Byzantine and Islamic astronomy with European thought) led to the Placidus house system popularized during Europe’s early modern period, the Baroque cultural movement, and the start of the Scientific Revolution.
The Placidus approach also became tethered to the Age of Reason in Europe, whereas Whole Signs tends to be tethered to Asian (West Asia, South Asia, and East Asia) systems of astrology that were syncretized into Hellenistic astrology.
Working off the same Ptolemaic texts, Whole Signs astrologers arrived at a different interpretation, supported by approaches that more closely mirror an equal house approach found in Islamic manuscripts on Babylonian astrology and the astrological approach traced back to Asia (both Vedic and ancient Chinese systems of astrology are more aligned with a Whole Signs approach than Placidus).
And when we say “Placidus,” we’re name-dropping one specific type of time-based system as a stand-in for all time-based house systems. And when we say “Whole Signs,” we’re name-dropping one specific type of space-based system as the stand-in for all space-based house systems. “Whole Signs Houses” is just the name for this space-based house system coined by Robert Hand. So just keep that in mind as well.
And for those obsessed with citations, I'm getting all this info from these linked lectures and articles, and these titan folks have most certainly cited their sources. So that's where you'll wanna go.
All right, now back to the 2023 controversy.
A Skyscript discussion thread documents the arguments against Brennan’s position (https://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11925&), with posts leaning in favor of Houlding.
You’ll also find enlightening discussion threads in the Facebook group “Traditional Astrologers” where the posts tend to lean in favor of Brennan (he’s one of the moderators). The group is set to private, so you’ll need to join to read, but that’s where a lot of the debate is taking place.
After his video response, Brennan invited Demetra George onto his Astrology Podcast to respond to what Brennan dubbed “Whole Sign House Denialism” (https://youtu.be/Wbiun5V8MQQ). George, a Hellenistic astrology historian, is the author of Ancient Astrology in Theory and Practice, Astrology for Yourself, Mysteries of the Dark Moon, and many more highly acclaimed books in the field.
Days after that, Robert Hand came onto the Astrology Podcast in response to Houlding’s claims (https://youtu.be/u4xJP74Rx1Q). Hand was one of the three original founders of Project Hindsight. Both George and Hand, facilitated by Brennan, endeavored to refute Houlding’s claims and also “cite their sources” to show why Whole Signs existed since the times of ancient astrology (and what they mean by “ancient astrology”).
Houlding posted an article by Martin Gansten, “Platikos and moirikos: Ancient Horoscopic Practice in the Light of Vettius Valens’ Anthologies” (https://brill.com/view/journals/ijdp/4/1/article-p1_1.xml), asserting that established scholarship connecting Vettius Valens to systems such as Whole Signs were likely a misinterpretation, or at the very least, ancient astrology is not dependent on a Whole Signs approach, and contends that Valens’ preference was for a system more aligned with Placidus (i.e., calculating from quadrants formed by the intersections of horizon and meridian).
Brennan has a few important and educational videos up on his channel about Valens, including one posted around the time Houlding posted the Gansten article (https://youtu.be/whJJkOcTp38). See also “The Anthology of Vettius Valens” (https://youtu.be/V9bJ3Ne2WrA).
Author Anthony Louis, known equally for his astrology and tarot work, somehow got looped into the controversy as both sides cited his writings. So Louis shared some of his thoughts. He chimed in on the Valens conversation here: “Looking at one of Valens’ charts — WSH [Whole Sign Houses] or Porphyry?” (Feb. 15, 2023), https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2023/02/15/looking-at-one-of-valens-charts-wsh-or-porphyry/
Louis leans toward the house approach espoused by Houlding, as noted in “The House Wars of Astrology” (Feb. 11, 2023), referring to it as the “more nerdy approach to house division, but it may turn out that the simpler whole sign systems works just as well.” (https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2023/02/11/the-house-wars-of-astrology/)
While you’re at it, you may also be interested in reading “Whole Sign Houses in 20th Century Astrology” (Feb. 12, 2023), https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2023/02/12/whole-sign-houses-in-20th-century-astrology/ and “The House Wars, Part II — Witte’s Perspective” (Feb. 16, 2023), https://tonylouis.wordpress.com/2023/02/16/the-house-wars-part-ii-wittes-perspective/.
For those who really want to continue down the rabbit hole, check out Rok Koritnik’s article “Burning Down the House – A Conceptual Approach to the House Systems Controversy” (Feb. 15, 2023) is another insightful read, https://rokkoritnikastrologer.com/burning-down-the-house-a-conceptual-approach-to-the-house-systems-controversy/ and Alex aka Zagata’s “Refuting Deborah Houlding's Claim That Whole Sign Houses Were Not Used by Ancient Astrologers” (https://youtu.be/XM42S64PItk).
ASSESSMENT
While I am primarily a Whole Signs reader, I have always maintained that if you’re serious about learning astrology, learn both types of systems (i.e., time-based charts and space-based charts). In the space-based camp, Whole Signs tends to be the most well-known system, though you’ll also hear references to Equal Houses, and in the time-based camp, it tends to be Placidus, though you’ll also hear about Koch. Heck, I even insist that you gain a strong understanding of both Tropical and Sidereal.
Just an observation of this 2023 version of the debate: both sides used the same attacks to smear the other. Placidus proponents claimed that Whole Signs popularity was the result of a pop culture movement, and then by the same swipe, Whole Signs proponents claimed that Placidus popularity was the result of a pop culture movement. Placidus proponents characterized Whole Signs proponents as fanatical and cult-like; Whole Signs proponents characterized Placidus as fanatical and cult-like. Both sides accused the other of misinformation. And then in a blink of an eye, the attacks got personal, both sides name-calling the other as either pseudo-historians or culturally bigoted.
Both sides kinda played the victim card, if we’re being honest with our observations. Placidus people like to position themselves as being in the minority, claiming the field of astrology is dominated by Whole Signs now. But then equally, Whole Signs people position themselves as being in the minority, claiming that Placidus is dominant. Both sides claim to be misunderstood.
One notable point that both sides agreed on is that more often than not, the house system an individual astrologer decides to go with is based on which version of their own natal chart most resonates with them. Interesting, huh?
Which to me also suggests that choice of house system is really personal. There is no way one approach is wholesale monolithically better than the other. Just like how some artists do better in the oils medium than charcoal while other artists do better in charcoal than oils, as an individual astrologer, your goal is to identify the approach that works the best for you, that best optimizes your ability to be accurate.
These sorts of debates are less about which system is actually better and more about cults of personality. More balanced astrologers have pointed out that debating which system is better is like debating which language is superior, Latin or Arabic, or debating which camera lens to use in photography. And at the end of the day, I think all of these astrologers we’ve referenced would agree “you do you” and each individual astrologer will arrive at a uniquely different opinion, based on their unique life experiences and perspectives.
As for debating the historicity of the systems, I am not a historian and cannot speak intelligently to these points. Though in terms of historical Chinese texts I’ve come across, lists of constellations, what types of fortunes or disasters each of these constellations bring, and a division of the sky into mansions or palaces based on observations of the solar paths and lunar phases is as old as 500 – 200 BC, referencing observations of the sun, moon, and the “five stars” (Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn) per four directions (ascendant, imum coeli, descendant, and midheaven equivalents). See, e.g., 通占大象曆星經 (Tōng zhàn dà xiàng lì xīng jīng). I don’t even know if that’s the oldest, but it’s an identifiable example of one Whole Signs -ish system.
A book I’ve been enjoying is The Circulation of Astronomical Knowledge in the Ancient World (Brill, 2016), edited by John M. Steele. It’s a book of scholarly articles by renowned professors of Babylonian history and a bunch of -ologists who've been extensively published in peer-reviewed academic journals-- Assyriologists, Egyptologists, Sinologists, archaeologists, etc. While the articles in that compendium might not address this house systems debate on its head, it sure gives a lot of informative cultural and historical context.
I confess I have not watched every minute of everything linked here, or read every single word, but have skimmed or skipped around or played at double speed enough of the linked content to get the meat and potatoes.
Why does this controversy interest me?
Well, to be fair, I think everyone with any interest in the legacy of Western astrology has taken some interest in this debate.
These were all names we've heard before, authors we've read, whose books line our home libraries, or whose podcasts we enjoy tuning in to. Hearing their perspectives, their rationales, how they arrived at those rationales based on the research they've done, and getting a bunch of great book recommendations along the way adds both depth and color to our own knowledge bases.
Sociocognitive conflict can teach us so much about ourselves, about the subject matter itself, and about the delicate politics of our community. So that's why this has been so interesting to me.
RECOMMENDATION
I don’t have any recommendations, other than I’d love to hear from you! =) Though please forgive if I am unable to reply to each and every response I receive.
If you’ve followed this controversy to any degree or have found this SBAR helpful as you navigated the discussions, I’d love to get your thoughts and opinions. Hit reply-back to this e-mail. Are you an astrologer or astrology-enthusiast? Which house system do you use? Are you familiar with any of the names dropped in this SBAR and what are your impressions of them?
This request is for my personal curiosity only.
Toward a greater collective,
Bell