Deb,

Try this link http://www.astrophoebe.com/
and select the 'Spin of the Wheel' article.

On top of the fact that the basic premise is faulty, you seem to have mixed a lot of inconsistent reasoning here to make this hypothesis fit. It is really unconvincing, and without any historical support, it can?t be taken seriously.

I find your reasoning irrational, it's not my basic premise and I have made no effort to make the hypothesis fit anything since I have no view/opinion on the Joys.

Phoebee Wyss presents her 'version' of History and you could e-mail her to discuss this further, she references your book.

So you have another view on Saturn's Joy and prefer the MANILUS model, which is the earliest reference you have found.

This thread has been quite revealing in showing us how 'cloudy' so many things are in Astrology.


Lenor

I've corrected your link to make it work.

Yes she does reference me, and seems to use my text as a major source for the ideas put forward. But my arguments are not correctly presented, so I can't personally give that article my support.

Since you have no personal view or opinion on the joys, I am wondering why the need to pursue this thread so vigorously?

This thread has been quite revealing in showing us how 'cloudy' so many things are in Astrology.

You are talking about one of the most ancient concepts of astrology, so yes, we can expect a certain amount of cloudiness in our knowledge of their origins. But there are a lot more facts than you appear to be aware of, and what I personally know of these are covered in my text. But I didn't say that I preferred the Manilius model; only that I believed that Saturn is really better suited in the 4th. Both have a sense of appropriateness according to their own approach.

Vigor tends to reveal which narrative is more compelling.

'Sense of appropriateness' ensures a 'sense of subjectivity'.

Hi Lenor,

Thanks for the link, it helps clarify what you?re meaning. This is something I?d also been looking into a while ago. Appreciated.

Actually, I'd like to see horoscopes drawn for those born in SH from an actual SH pov in this day and age in the streams of western astrology ... think it would go long way towards helping in better understanding the construct.

Anyway...

the idea that Planetary Joys become redundant if you construct a horoscope anti-clockwise

I disagree with the idea they become redundant simply because of a shift in hemispheric orientation.
But I will agree there?s been plenty of margin for errors in transmission, translation, interpretation of knowledge from south to north, and plenty of transference from sidereal to tropical.

I think there?s a number of things need to keep in mind.

1. There are primarily 2 motions, regardless of whether chart is constructed from northern or southern hemisphere; diurnal motion which references rotation, earth spinning on its axis (the 24 hour day) and orbital motion which gives succession through the signs, earth?s orbit and that of planets.

2. Diurnal is referred to in the old texts as the 1st movement whereas succession is the 2nd movement.

3. If facing towards ecliptic or the equator, rather than the poles, then:

i)from NH pov (facing south) diurnal motion is clockwise ? the direction is the power of a day (Sun & stars rise from one?s left);
ii)from NH pov succession through the houses/signs is anti-clockwise and marks passage of planets through months of a year.

What?s gestating in the months of a year(s) is brought up to the light of day via a reversal in motion.
It is this, the power of the direction of the day from a NH pov that the Gauquelin study brings to light (reference to power of the direction of the day is also made by the likes of Al Biruni et al)

4.
i) from SH pov facing north, diurnal motion (1st movement) is anti-clockwise (sun & stars rise from right),
ii) from SH pov, succession through the houses/signs is clockwise.


Yes re the article, the Dendera zodiac running clockwise is from a SH pov and in India charts are constructed from both a NH & SH pov.

And while the author mentions magnetic pole shifts with India being at lower latitude, I'd also suggest keeping in mind what happens with the changing of earth?s pole in relation to pole stars ? shifts in orientation. And the fact that western astrology no longer uses the zodiacal co-ordinate system, it uses an equatorial co-ordinate system.

Important to keep in mind that Indian and Babylonian systems (as above) are based on sidereal ? not tropical. So ?sign/houses? run more in line with constellations rather than diverging as occurs with tropical.

Namely, the astrological year begins with rising of a constellation (a star sign, not a sun sign), eg. Aries, the month beginning with new Moon measuring out sign commensurate with constellation.

The equinoctial crossing (vernal equinox) commonly used in the west as a start point for tropical zodiac was for regulating ?civil? time, eg. regulating appointments of pontiffs, levying taxes etc ? not the seasons.
Stars, measured via the Moon, were used for demarcating the seasons ? constellations and seasons both being of uneven length.

There was a progressive gradual shift, calendrically, societally, culturally starting pre AD away from the framework offered by stars & Moon towards greater focus on ecliptic and sun.

?I admit I can find no reason for Jupiter rejoicing in the 11th''

In keeping with the line you & the author have put forward, then the 11th of NH chart is the 8th of a SH chart.

The houses and signs are/were intrinsically connected (I?ll return to this in a minute), one doesn?t change without the other when location is changed from SH to NH ? although, if translating knowledge from one location to another only from books without positioning oneself at that location then potentially an easy error to make.

In the sidereal astrological year which is taken from the rise of constellation Aries, New Moon against constellation Aries, the 8th house/sign is the 8th month, ie. 8th New Moon measuring out the 8th sign/house commensurate with constellation, Scorpio.

In Indian system, Scorpio was considered an ?aerial? sign (eg. the eagle), also remembering there?s been some re-configuring of boundaries with Libra. Cross quarter time for trade winds and ocean currents.

Each triplicity has a (planet) lord ruler by day, another by night, and a third which shares in this responsibility both day and night.

The ?airy? triplicity has Saturn as lord by day, Mercury by night and Jupiter as partner.

Jupiter is a ?partner lord? of the airy triplicity both day and night. And Jupiter rules the ?fiery? triplicity by night.

In the context you?ve presented, along with the author of the article, we therefore have Jupiter rejoicing (hallelujah!) in the 8th.

However, this is a ?darker? side or nocturnal dimension of Jupiter rejoicing (eg. preaching fire and brimstone).
8th sign/house is nocturnal-receptive-feminine (lunar-soul- power) accommodating Jupiter which rules the fiery triplicity by night.

It reflects the heights and depths Jupiter can travel along with the Moon (as well as Mars if bring in the Lord of the water triplicity), and where the ?firey? expression of Jupiter (remembering it rules the fiery triplicity by night) has a forceful presence - turbulence in the air (trade winds), whipping the seas into a storm (currents).

The houses do not get adjusted without their corresponding signs (if they do this is like having the sun rising in the east with the stars/constellations - the outer suns - rising in the west. Doesn't happen.)

Jupiter?s ?joy? in 11th reflects it?s ?joy? in the 11th month of the sidereal astrological year, constellation Aquarius and references a quality of air as well as light? this is a solar/day house-sign-constellation.

It ?joys? in 11th whether NH chart or SH, moderator 'rejoicing' in sciences etc (eg. irrigation)

There is confusion that arises when shifting from motion of a year to that within a day ? change in directions - as well as hemispheres.

When it comes to exaltations etc then there?s more to it than neat, intellectual, symmetrical constructs ? for example orbital cycles, astronomical altitude etc. Personally, I'm of the view that to avoid intellectual abstractions then need to ground it in reality - the stars are still there.
There?s an incredible complexity in the understanding of the architecture of the cosmos as laid down by ancient predecessors and a cohesiveness that reveals inordinate depths of synthesis.

In addition, Babylonians have the longest record of qualitative and quantitave analysis of astrological influences, cycles, etc relating to all facets of life that spans some 600+ years. Nothing really like it since.


Saturn?s connection with the West also relates to points of compass (ref Al-Biruni?s book of instruction, pge 215).

Gemini occupies the centre of the West, Libra is a point to its left and south, and Aquarius to its North and right. These are all ?solar? (masculine, ?day? houses/signs which first references power of Sun at particular times of year before swiveling to contents of a particular day) and Saturn is Lord of ?airy? triplicity by day.
Saturn?s orbit is the most stable, the least irregular of the planets.

In Al-biruni?s book of instruction, the orientation has also been changed from a SH pov to that more in keeping with NH pov where the fiery (East) and airy (West) triplicities have changed places for purposes of illustration. Gets confusing ? but we have been traveling through Age of Pisces.

Saturn's joy in the 12th references the motion/direction of succession over a year rather than direction during the course of a day. He's friends with Jupiter, the co-significator of this house being Pisces, Jupiter's night house. Jupiter's influence moderates that of Saturn here - greater levity. While many consider this a good place for this so-called 'author of mischief' (tickles one's feet in their sleep? What a nightmare!) ... it may just also refer to Saturn's joy at being released from mundane bonds, eg. karma.

"When did the signs/house meanings start to merge?

Maybe take this back a step to when signs & houses began to diverge.

The signs/house began to diverge with the shift in emphases to the equinoctial year (solar calculations/calendar), a point to which the ?signs? (months ? originally taken from new moon measuring constellations) were subsequently attached.

Remembering, later astronomers found it difficult to discern what point Ptolemy used (sidereal or equinoctial). This also resulted in a diffusion of opinions.

As the divergence between the two (sidereal & tropical) became increasingly apparent then choices were made ? the west was increasingly using tropical (solar civil time, whereby it eventually abolished use of Moon for months & seasons) and that which applied to the sidereal construct was also increasingly transferred to the solar (tropical) construct.

This before we get to the actual hours/contents of a day which involves a change in both orientation and direction.

For the joys, fortunes etc as applies under the tropical paradigm, I believe they run deeper than the symmetrical rationales and if looking to Indian practice through to ancient Babylon then think it needs to be considered first from sidereal pov and in relation to cycles, astronomical altitude etc which also puts purpose and function of the equinoctial crossing back into context.

For example, there is a tablet of Nebuchadnessar?s time (604-561 BC) stating that the Moon?s exaltation is in Perseus and the Pleiades. Later it was said to be in 3 degrees Taurus, which is exactly the same spot for the sidereal longitudes of the stars concerned.

The Moon had an exaltation before the zodiac was reduced to 12 signs which was then later attached to the equinox as start point following from pre AD calendrical reform of the months to better regulate civil life, and the transfer of meanings initially applicable to sidereal across to tropical was also commensurate with the shift towards an increasing emphasis on solar time.

Pluto's rx ... time to dig deeper into our ancient past perhaps.

Kind regards,

TS.

Hallo everyone!
Tom wrote on 4.4.08 'I don't know anything about Wyss'
So here I am to present my ideas.
In my article, The Spin of the Wheel, which was published in the AA Journal Jan-Feb 07, and can be read on my website(www.astrophoebe.com) I suggest that the clockwise zodiacs preceded the anticlockwise, and the later way of drawing them came in with the Greeks. Their empirical scientific eye noticed that, to observe the constellations along the ecliptic from their latitude, they had to face south, which meant that to be accurate they must draw the signs in anticlockwise order. Up to then, I suggest the convention had been to draw them facing north or clockwise, either because astrology had been developed in the southern hemisphere, or so close to the equator (as in southern India) as to make no difference.
I then go on to discuss how this affects the houses. My attitude to the houses differs from that of traditional astrology. I see them archetypally (see my article ?An Archetypal View of the Houses? published in the AA Journal Nov-Dec 07, which can also be read on my website. My thesis is that, although houses and signs became merged for convenience, as in present-day charts from South India, they were always twelve -- a significant number in sacred geometry. The ancient cultures from which we have inherited astrology were heavily into sacred geometry, and also had mythologies associated with the landscape around them. The compass directions were personified as gods and goddesses, and the directions were fundamental to the measurement of the positions of the stars and planets (stone circles). I suggest in my article that this affected not only the quantitative level of astrology, but also the qualitative by filtering through into the meanings we give to the signs and houses today.
Going back to the idea of a switch occurring at the time of the Greeks, astrologers constructed charts using points on the landscape around their location. I imagine most of them were fortune tellers with no scientific understanding, and they could have simply switched the order of the signs while keeping the meanings of the houses (in the sense of their division of the landscape around them into twelve areas). This would have confused their significators, and I suggested this could also have affected the allocation of the ?joys?.
If you would like to consider my approach further, in my recently published book ?Hercules? Labours: an Evolutionary Path round the Horoscope?, I carry my archetypal view of the houses, which is based on a close correspondence between houses and signs, as far as it has ever been taken, and invite the reader to test whether it works for him or her personally.
Best wishes to the forum from Phoebe

Hello Phoebe,

Good to see you step in here, and thanks for sharing the article.

--?Going back to the idea of a switch occurring at the time of the Greeks, astrologers constructed charts using points on the landscape around their location. I imagine most of them were fortune tellers with no scientific understanding, and they could have simply switched the order of the signs while keeping the meanings of the houses (in the sense of their division of the landscape around them into twelve areas).??

Rather than being simply fortune tellers with no scientific understanding (which I think is a bit of a phenomenal projection in view of the scientific knowledge which forms the shoulders upon which understandings of this day & age stand) the switching directions I think arises from and gives rise to:

1. a confusion involving the increased focus on the ?hours? ? horary ? direction of the day, which is counter-clockwise to succession through the 12 houses/signs (lunar calendar, 12 months) of the year which was around from very ancient times.

2. Changes in latitude relating to observations of the heavens relative to earth, migration and dissemination of the knowledge north & west-wards;

3.?Latinizing? of ancient works, ie. from Attic Greek (derived from Phoenician alphabet, and like the Semitic alphabets was first written from right to left) to Common Dialect followed by scribal transcription of ancient texts into Latin (ie. re-interpreting texts written from right to left, such as Arabic, Hebrew etc into a language written left to right ? also reflecting a latitudinal shift as well as empirical change) followed by the descent from Classical Latin (1BC to 1AD) into Vulgar Latin (2nd century onward).
Dominance of Left to Right writing reflects strength of "north-western" influence.

For example, Fibonacci, an Italian mathematician who had studied in Bejaia (Bougie), Algeria, promoted the Arabic numeral system back in Europe with his book Liber Abaci, which was written in 1202, still describing the numerals as Indian rather than Arabic.
In Arabic the numerals are arranged with their lowest value digit to the right, with higher value positions added to the left.
This arrangement was adopted identically into the numerals as used in Europe. The Latin alphabet runs from left to right, unlike the Arabic alphabet, which resulted in an inverse arrangement of the place-values relative to the direction of reading.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals


4. What repeatedly appears to get overlooked is that the old/ancient systems were sidereal. The 12-fold division was based on the months (lunar) of the year, the passage of time over a year ? not hours in a day. Sidereal is primary reason why there?s a confluence between the systems from four quarters of the world. There were considered differences between the astrological year & the equinoctial (solar) year ? the solar year is terrestrial and relates to regnal-empirical rule.

For example, as the solar point (tropical, equinoctial) traverses the final stages of constellation Pisces ... empirical (solar) militarian (mars - rules watery triplicity) dominian on earth is undergoing an overall process of dissolution. While it points to & illuminates warming & rising waters, it also points towards cooler change upon entering Aquarius.

Disparity between house & sign is naturally going to occur if instead of a constellation the trend arises, which it did, to affix commencement of ?houses? to a start for the solar year (eg. solstitial points or equinoctial crossings) ? which harks back to empirical rule, the ?all-conquering sun? over terrestrial domains (earth).
Therefore we see a distinction emerging between ?temples? of the sky & houses on earth. One start point's affixed to stars (which are unmoving), the other to earth (in constant motion).

The disparity between houses (now attached to sun?s earth crossing, tropical) & celestial houses is simply precession. Not new knowledge.

And, as such, the fixed ascendant (the one with houses attached to it) naturally follows through to constructs involving a nativity ? fixed to earth with the heavens rotating. Places the individual at the center of the universe ... which is not how individual's were conceived of as being in ancient terms.
However, the older systems of wandering Ascendant within the construct demonstrates a moving earth within the schematic, in orbit against fixed stars.

Insofar as joys, exaltations etc are concerned there?s a need to grasp the solar & lunar natures of the planets & dominions. As well as order. Night & day as pertains to a year.

For example, the order of planetary considerations in the old Babylonian scheme was in order:

Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, Mars.

In terms of compass directions, and that in the older schemes a ?day? started at sunset, once sun had gone down:

Jupiter is nocturnal ruler of the fire triplicity (East);
Venus governs Earth by day (South);
Mercury rules airy triplicity by night (West);
Saturn rules airy triplicity by day (West) and
Mars rules water triplicity by night (North).

Some will note that this also travels from what is considered ?benevolent? (eg. Jupiter) to ?malevolent? (Mars).
But in older circles Saturn was not regarded as ?malevolent?, such attributions also convey a cultural orientation about how climes & cultures West & North were regarded.

The further north or ?up? one traveled from the tropics the ?harsher? (& colder) the climes became. Luna & Mars ? watery triplicity.

But, there's another subtle consideration here ... earth is an oblate spheroid. In this context, the equatorial region is 'elevated' or 'up' while earth's poles are 'downward' points, Left & Right respectively when facing the direction of Ascent (rise).

For interest another SH zodiac (aside from Denderah) is the 3rd century CE mosaic discovered in Bir-Chana, Zaghouan, central Tunisia.

http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/Z50.2.html

While there?s no doubt there?s been transcribal errors, an inversion doesn?t really go towards explaining the ?joys? etc unless the construct - how they may have been originated and the cultural paradigm which also specifically relates to clime - is also explained.

This is where I think by and large explanations for joys, exaltations etc stumble, generally speaking, as still reverts to theories of intellectual symmetry whereas ancient predecessors worked with observable phenomena in nature & sidereal.

For example, Saturn in early degrees of constellation Leo (which is where it's at these days) is a preliminary indicator for earth-quakes (earth cracking). Saturn's in detriment. Where the tensions of extremities, of qualities observed in nature, converge and rupture ... nature "roars".

In reversed chart Jupiter would be seen to be ?joying? in the 8th (the reversed 11th of NH chart).

This makes sense when understand 8th is a lunar (nocturnal) dominion that references the direction North West along with constellation Scorpio and its rise at a certain time of year which was considered an ?aerial? sign in the Indian construct ? to do with direction of air, Wind over water.

It also makes sense that Jupiter joys in the 11th ? which is a solar temple/house.

Important difference here between 'day' and 'night' as relates to the construct of a year, which then gets translated across into construct of a day.

Why it would 'joy' in a certain area relative to location also involves its cyclical & orbital considerations relative to other bodies, as well as astronomical latitude (sacred geometry).

Kind regards,
TS

To add:

For example, the order of planetary considerations in the old Babylonian scheme was in order:

Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, Mars.

In terms of compass directions, and that in the older schemes a ?day? started at sunset, once sun had gone down:

Jupiter is nocturnal ruler of the fire triplicity (East);
Venus governs Earth by day (South);
Mercury rules airy triplicity by night (West);
Saturn rules airy triplicity by day (West) and
Mars rules water triplicity by night (North).

Some will note that this also travels from what is considered ?benevolent? (eg. Jupiter) to ?malevolent? (Mars).
But in older circles Saturn was not regarded as ?malevolent?, such attributions also convey a cultural orientation about how climes & cultures West & North were regarded.

In the older cuneiform literature, Saturn & Mercury change places to where Saturn is in the center, ie. order is:
Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Mars

This ancient position of Saturn being central to the schematic, the arbiter exalted between light & dark, is also reflected in the 3rd century CE zodiac of days & months found in Tunisia which is a Southern Hemisphere construction/chart.


http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/Z50.2.html

Another addition with regard to East being to one's right (the inversion of the zodiac observed when viewing from a SH orientation) with regard to the inverted Dendera & Tunisia zodiacs (East = right):


Aristotle (384-322BC) On The Heavens Book II:

" Of the poles, that which we see above us is the lower region, and that which we do not see is the upper. For right in anything is, as we say, the region in which locomotion originates, and the rotation of the heaven originates in the region from which the stars rise.
So this will be the right, and the region where they set the left.
If then they begin from the right and move round to the right, the upper must be the unseen pole (the south pole is the 'unseen' pole ).
For if it is the pole we see, the movement will be leftward, which we deny to be the fact.
Clearly then the invisible pole is above. And those who live in the other hemisphere are above and to the right, while we are below and to the left.
This is just the opposite of the view of the Pythagoreans, who make us above and on the right side and those in the other hemisphere below and on the left side; the fact being the exact opposite.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/a/ ... book2.html

Pythagoras of Samos (Greek: born between 580 and 572 BC, died between 500 and 490 BC) Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: Passages in the Doxographists:

ii. 10; 339. Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle: The right hand side of the universe is the eastern part from which comes the beginning of motion, and the left hand side is the west.

ii. 12 ; 340. Thales, Pythagoras, and their followers: The sphere of the whole heaven is divided into five circles, which they call zones; the first of these is called the arctic zone and is ever visible; the second the summer solstice, the third the equinoctial, the fourth the winter solstice, and fifth the antarctic zone, which is invisible.
And the ecliptic called the zodiac in the three middle ones is projected to touch the three middle ones. And the meridian crosses all these from the north to the opposite quarter at right angles. It is said that Pythagoras was the first to recognise the slant of the zodiacal circle which Oenopides of Chios appropriated as his own [Page 148] discovery

Hi TS,

I am not quite sure what you are suggesting here, but it looks to me like you are taking Aristotle?s passage as support for an argument that the zodiac originated in the Southern Hemisphere. So I just want to point out that the passage is clearly demonstrating a northern hemisphere orientation. That is, the astrologer is expected to be in the northern hemisphere, facing south.

The disagreement that this passage relates to, is whether the North Pole or the South Pole represents ?the top?. Nowadays, we automatically assume that the North Pole is the top because we see it that way in the maps. But Aristotle?s argument is that the North Pole signifies the lower region. The symbolic origin for this view is astrological - that we look towards the south (where the lights are seen) and have the North Pole behind us. The North Pole of course is the one that we can always see in the northern hemisphere, and the South Pole is ?that which we do not see?.

I have had many discussions about this passage in the past, and there are a few things that need to be understood. Firstly, the words which have been translated as right and left here had, in the original sense, broader meanings than the simple directions associated with those words today. Aristotle explains this in his preceding text. Right was ?righteous? and left was weaker, feminine and sinister, so sometimes these words were used to make qualitative distinctions rather than directional ones. Aristotle explains that ?right? is associated with the origin of movement, and so forth, so that the ascendant is associated with right and the descendant with left because of their active and passive qualities. But rightward motion is that which moves from the ascendant towards the midheaven. You have to imagine that the astrologer is facing towards the east ? where the observation begins ? so that he has the midheaven on his right and the IC on his left. Planetary movement from the ascendant to the midheaven is appropriate, right, (rightward) and in the natural order of things. Movement in the opposite direction would be leftward and unnatural, which is why Aristotle says:

For if it is the pole we see, the movement will be leftward, which we deny to be the fact.
[That is, if the movement were going from the ascendant towards the north pole (the IC), it would be leftward, but this does not happen]

Clearly then the invisible pole [the southern pole] is above [towards the MC] . And those who live in the other hemisphere [southerners] are above and to the right, while we [northerners] are below and to the left.

Welcome to the forum Phoebe, Unfortunately I haven?t had time to follow all the arguments in this thread closely, which makes me reluctant to comment further until (and if!) that happens. But one comment I did notice, that seemed very relevant, was where TS said:

What repeatedly appears to get overlooked is that the old/ancient systems were sidereal. The 12-fold division was based on the months (lunar) of the year, the passage of time over a year ? not hours in a day.

In addition, I don?t understand why anyone would want to argue a southern hemisphere origin for the zodiac. Its history in Mesopotamia as an 18 constellation path of the Moon, later reduced to a 12-sign zodiac based on the Sun?s path is robustly recorded. For the sake of making sense of one or two curious details, we would have to make nonsense out of virtually everything else that is already known and universally accepted.

But I will try to find time to look at your arguments more closely.

Thanks for contributing
Deb

Hi dear colleagues,

What do you think about natural significators of the houses - Mars for the first and the eighth, Venus for the second and the seventh and so on... comparing to the joys? Some russian authors mention also houses of elevation, analogous to the signs of exaltation, i.e. Sun for the first, Moon for the second and so on...

So let's consider some house, for example the first one:
- Ruling planet,
- Mercury rejoys here,
- Mars is the natural significator,
- Sun is in elevation.

Mars is the natural significator of the first and the eighth, rejoys in the sixth and in elevation in the tenth. In which house it's best?

Sun is the natural significator of the fifth house, finds elevation in the first and rejoys in the ninth. In which house it feels best?

Gem wrote:Nicholas Cupleper in 'Astrological judgement of Diseases From the Decumbiture of the Sick':

some Authors hold an opinion that the sings carry the same signification in order that the houses of heaven do, and that Aries should signify life; Taurus estate; Gemini brethern and short journeys, you know the rest. Truly my own opinion is, many Authors invented posterity for truth; who taking them up without trial, cloathed Tradition in Plush and left Poor Reason to go in Rags.
I take this to be one of that generation, and I prove it thus: By this account Cancer should rule Fathers, ...

What page is this on in Culpeper?

Lilly makes the sign-house association as well in book 1 of CA, but after that he never really seems to do anything with it.

It's on p88.