Orisis wrote:
the Max Duval bookon domification is a scan from the 80s print edition, turn to page 47, he mentions Albert Negre who introduced his use of the zodiac as houses in a 1950 article in the famous magazine "les cahiers astrologiques" from Alexandre Volguine. so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.
Ok, so for the benefit of those who don't speak French let me address this properly, but forgive my translations, I'm horrible at all languages, modern or ancient.
So here's what Max Duval reports of Albert Negre's proposition:
(Max Duval, La Domification et Les Transits, 1987, p.47)
Fin 1950, Albert Nègre proposait sa « domification zodiacale ». L’étude de nombreux thèmes lui apporta la preuve qu’elle était très probablement la seule vraie, — se demandant s’il n’avait pas retrouvé la domification des Anciens. C’est encore une variante du Modus Aequalis dont le principe reste simple : le signe zodiacal où se place le Point Ascendant est la maison I, — le signe suivant la maison II, etc. L’inventeur termine ainsi sa présentation : « L’expérience m’ayant indubitablement prouvé que la domification zodiacale permet d’interpréter aisément là où les autres domifications échouent, j’estime qu’elle est la vraie méthode, et la seule applicable à tous les thèmes ». On allait le dire.
At the end of 1950, Albert Nègre proposed his "zodiacal house-system". The study of numerous charts provided him the proof that it was very probably the sole true one - wondering if he hadn't rediscovered the house-system of the Ancients. It is another variant of the Equal House system of which the principle remains simple: the zodiacal sign where where the Ascendant Degree is placed is House 1 - the following sign House 2, etc. The inventer ends his presentation thusly: "The experience having undoubtedly proven to me that the zodiacal house-system allows me to interpret with ease where other house-systems fail, I believe that this is the one true method, and the only one applicable to all charts". We were going to say the same thing.
(For simplicity, I've translated 'domification' as house system but am keen to avoid any hair-splitting about what a system means etc.)
Now this is what Albert Nègre had said of this system, which Max Duval was quoting from:
(Albert Nègre, La Domification Zodiacale, Les Cahiers Astrologique, No. 29, 1950)
Après avoir moi-même utilisé Placidus, Régiomontanus Campanus, et enfin le « modus æqua- lis », je désespérais de trouver une domification parfaite, lorsque l'idée me vint de supprimer les maisons terrestres pour les remplacer par les seuls signes du zodiaque auxquels je conférai le titre de Maisons. Les premiers résultats que j'obtins avec cette méthode me surprirent par leur exactitude. Je me mis donc à étudier de nombreux thèmes qui tous m'apportèrent la preuve que la domification que j'employais était très probablement la seule vraie. Avais-je retrouvé la domification des anciens? Je l'ignore. En tout cas, la nombreuse littérature astrologique dont j'ai pu disposer ne m'ayant révélé aucune trace d'une méthode identique ou seulement approchante, je crois être le premier à l'exposer et, comme elle n'a pas de nom, je lui en donnerai un; je l'appellerai Domification Zodiacale (en abrégé D.Z.).
After having myself used Placidus, Regiomontanus, Campanus and finally the Equal House system, I was desperate to find a perfect house-system, when the idea occurred to me to to remove the terrestrial houses and to replace them by the zodiac signs alone to which I bestowed the title of Houses. The first results I obtained with this method surprised me with their accuracy. I set myself therefore to study numerous charts which all brought to me the proof that the house-system I was employing was very probably the sole true one. Had I rediscovered the house-system of the ancients? I do not know. In any case, the numerous astrological written works which I had at my disposal not having revealed any trace of an identical method or anything close to it, I think to be the first to reveal it, and, as it has no name, I will give one to it: I will call it the Zodiacal House-System.
So as far as I can see it, we can summise a couple of things from it:
In 1950 French astrologers were not talking about WSH.
It was *so* unheard of that Albert Negre thought he was inventing it.
By the mid-late 80s, at least one other french astrologer heard of the system, and recommended its usage.
If you continue reading Negre's article, he talks about how he expects the system to be criticised but at least in part because of its simplicity, he is convinced by its accuracy as the sole true house system.
Now Osiris writes:
so there was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden, project Hindsight etc. happening in France actually. there is no doubt about that.
Well actually I don't think this evidence at least supports the conclusion that there was an active discussion happening in France. There is certainly doubt about that.
A couple of things to remember: James Holden published his Ancient House Division article in 1982. Max Duval's work was first published in 1987. So I'm not sure what discussion you think is happening in France before Holden as Holden published his work 5 years prior to Duval.
So the only thing that might be left to determine discussion is Albert Negre's article. In which case where is the discussion? A single person expressing a single opinion is not a discussion. If there was a discussion in French astrology I would love to see it, but that would mean other people talking of Negre's work and actively discussing it. A sole article is not a discussion.
Now as it happens I have the entire collection of Cahiers Astrologique. There are 2104 articles across 238 publications. Having searched them all, there are exactly two references to the name of Negre's house system: the one in which it is first introduced, and a single footnote by Negre in another edition in which he draws the attention of the reader back to his original article.
That is hardly a discussion.
So in conclusion I have to disagree, on the face of this evidence at least that there was "was an active discussion around WSH prior to Holden". If there was, then this isn't the proof of it at all.
Now what does this have to do with Deb Houlding's presentation?
Nothing at all that I can see!
It seems to be nothing more than a distraction in a hopeless and rather petty attempt to find some words Deb said in a hope to perform some ungracious 'gotcha!' so people can point to it excitedly and call her a liar.
But what did Deb herself say? Well if you get to slide 2, you'll see she says:
"Proportion of 'western' astrologers using Signs for Houses in early 1990s (pre-Project Hindsight): <0.01%"
Any indication of "nobody used it" is to be taken with the relevant context of a common idiomatic hyperbole that the number of people using it is so frightenly small as to be practically nobody.
I would have imagined it was understood by all but the most obtusely pernickity that Deb was discussing the community of the astrological world in the broadly English speaking cultlure of the time. I cannot imagine anyone seriously thinking Deb was talking about every author across every language in every printed work in the entire globe. If people feel she was really making that point then actually I think the astrological community is doomed.
(PS someone sent me the work of François Labat from 1961 which I look forward to reading - apparently there's a reference to WSH there too)
