On the same NASA site there's this document with maps that are more detailed (more cities). It takes a while to download the 6.64MB document http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/200 ... 14169a.pdf but there's lots of info. See p.48 and further for the maps.

Eddy Wrote:

However wouldn?t Morin's argument that the opposite meanings would reverse at the equator also count for the equinoxes (which in fact are also a sort of ?nodes?) and therefore alter the signs?

Tom Wrote:

Not in Morin's mind, or at least I don't think so. What follows is my understanding of what he might have said. It isn't the last word on his thoughts or even my own.

There are two points that have to be kept in mind. The first is that the Sun issues its influence universally and without discrimination. It issues only solar influence and that is the same everywhere: north south east and west. The difference is in how it is received. The Sun melts wax and hardens clay. The solar influence on both is identical, but the results are different because that which is receiving them is different. Wax does not behave the same way as clay when both are subjected to 100 degree heat.

The second is this: Morin believed that the Sun was at 0 Aries at the creation. I have no idea how he thought he knew this. When the Sun returns to 0 Aries each year it reinforces its influence universally and without discrimination. Therefore the effects in the northern and southern hemispheres might be different, it is due to how those effects are received.

Notice, too, he is dealing with the effects of the Sun, not some point. 0 Aries is always with us.

This also brings us to the final point: the Sun does not affect the sign. The sign affects the Sun. Planets get their influence from the signs they rule, not vice versa. The Sun, as stated above pours forth its influence universally and without discrimination. What is emanated from the Sun is modified by the Sign. The constellations may be reversed below the equator, but I don't believe the signs are reversed. I ran two charts on solar fire one each for above and below the equator, and it calculated both for the same sign rising. I may need an Aussie to straighten me out on this.

Tom

Thanks thats an interesting explanation of Morin's perspective on this. I read in one of the Morin volumes I have ( sorry I am away from my copy) Morin was critical of contemporaries- Cardano? who argued for reversing the signs in the southern hemisphere. However, the translator James Holden suggests this was a misunderstanding by Morin of what these astrologers actually suggested.

We do have traditional astrologers today ( Maurice McCann for example) who argue that domicile dignities and rulerships should be reversed for southern hemisphere charts. The issue is therefore not about reversing signs but domicile dignities. Thus one could argue that the Sun in Leo is in detriment in a southern hemisphere chart as it occurs at its lowest declination in deepest winter in this part of the world. As a sign representing the coldest part of the year in the southern hemisphere its ruler would shift to Saturn. Following the lead of the Sun the other planets would also reverse their domicile dignity and rulers too.

McCann sets out his argument in his book 'The Sun and The Aspects'. Relying heavily on Ptolemy in the Tetabiblos McCann points out that Ptolemy lived in Alexandria, about 31 degrees North). Thus in explaining the domicile rulerships, Ptolemy acknowledges that in the Summer months the Sun in Cancer and Leo is closer to 'our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and warmth'- 'our' meaning the Zenith in Alexandria. He gave the Sun rulership of Leo because Leo is a masculine sign. The next most important planet, the Moon, is given the rulership of Cancer, a feminine sign.

McCann suggests Ptolemy's exposition of the rulerships are based on the Sun's furthest declination North (actually just over 23 degrees). McCann then ponders what might have happened if Ptolemy had lived in Sydney, Australia (just over 33 degrees South) - there the Sun's at it's hotest when in Capricorn and Aquarius. So on that basis Ptolemy would have given the Sun rulership over Aquarius (masculine) and the Moon rulership over Capricorn (feminine).

The remaining planets are given rulership through a combination of aspect and distance from the Sun. In the North, Saturn the most distant (for Ptolemy) is given rulership over Aquarius by opposition to the Sun in Leo and is given rulership over Capricorn by opposition to the Moon in Cancer.

Jupiter, the next planet in gets rulership of Sagittarius by trine from the Sun in Leo and rulership of Pisces by trine from the Moon in Cancer. Likewise, Mars rules Scorpio by square to the Sun in Leo and Aries by square to the Moon in Cancer. Venus rules Taurus and Libra by sextile to the luminaries and Mercury the remaining planet gets rulership of Gemini and Virgo the remaining signs.

If this system is transferred to the Southern hemisphere, McCann suggests that Ptolemy would have given Saturn rulership of Leo and Cancer, Jupiter would rule Gemini and Virgo, Mars would rule Libra and Taurus and so on. By the same principle fall and detriment would be reversed. McCann claims his approach to dignities and rulerships does not require a change in the meanings of signs. However, I confess I find it hard to understand how the meaning of Leo and Cancer are not changed if their domicile ruler changes to Saturn!

Following McCann's logic there is a case for considering the Libra Ingress as more important for southern hemisphere charts. After all, 0 Libra marks the spring equinox in the southern hemisphere. Isn't it strange to regard the Sun's in 'fall' at 0 Libra in a part of the world where the Sun is about to increase in declination leading up to the southern summer solstice?

It is useful to see the counter-argument by Morin which you have laid out. However, the difficulties of a universalized influence of signs in both hemispheres seems harder to defend with a tropical as opposed to a sidereal zodiac. Still, at least Morin avoids the messy issue of what to do about people living along the equator.... Plus I wasn't present at the beginning of creation so perhaps Morin is right.....

Actually, I believe Morin got this from Macrobius or Firmicus. If you read Macrobius or Firmicus Maternus and their ideas of the Thema Mundi you?ll find symbolism that does not relate specifically to the seasons. Thus this presents a traditional argument for universalizing the influence of signs across the world.

According to Macrobius, Aries was called the first, (although he rightly points out that there is nothing first or last in a sphere), because at the beginning of that day which was the first of all days ? that is, the day which is called the birthday of the universe ? Aries was in the middle of the sky; and because the middle of the sky is the summit of the universe, Aries was considered the first of the signs, since at the first dawn of light it appeared to be the head of the world. This, of course, would put Cancer on the ascendant, a summer sign for those of us who live north of the equator. According to Macrobius, planets rule the signs they rule because that?s where they were at the beginning of creation.

These writers were probably using a 'fixed zodiac' centred around 15, 10 or 8 Aries. The full implications of precession for the zodiac was not yet incorporated into their astrology. Its interesting that Claudius Ptolemy ,one of the very few classical writers to acknowledge precession, seems strongly influenced by the connection between the zodiac signs and the corresponding seasons and solar declination in the northern hemisphere.

Hello Mark

MarkC wrote: Thanks thats an interesting explanation of Morin's perspective on this. I read in one of the Morin volumes I have ( sorry I am away from my copy) Morin was critical of contemporaries- Cardano? who argued for reversing the signs in the southern hemisphere. However, the translator James Holden suggests this was a misunderstanding by Morin of what these astrologers actually suggested.

Yes, Cardano suggested to reverse the signs, and the same Campanella, and for what i understand Morin always stated they were wrong.

We do have traditional astrologers today ( Maurice McCann for example) who argue that domicile dignities and rulerships should be reversed for southern hemisphere charts. The issue is therefore not about reversing signs but domicile dignities.

I believe it's the same.
Ptolemy - according CieloeTerra at least would have said that the beginning of spring is Aries, whatever date this season starts, even the 23rd September.

But Campanella said we could just reverse dignities, so Mars has its domicile in Libra in the southern hemisphere.

Same result,

stay well
margherita

Margherita wrote:

I believe it's the same. Ptolemy - according CieloeTerra at least would have said that the beginning of spring is Aries, whatever date this season starts, even the 23rd September.

But Campanella said we could just reverse dignities, so Mars has its domicile in Libra in the southern hemisphere. Same result

Thanks Margherita,

However, is it really an identical result? In the first approach which you suggest might (?) have been accepted by Ptolemy and Cardano certainly did support, the order of signs is reversed to reflect the different seasons in the southern hemisphere. Thus Aries becomes Libra, Aquarius becomes Leo etc to reflect the changes in the seasons/solar declination. This approach still preserves the traditional planetary rulers and their dignities. The second approach suggested by McCann today (and Campanella?) keeps the same order of signs as in the northern hemisphere but reverses the planetary rulers and the dignities of the planets in these signs. Thus in the second approach we need to get our head around Saturn ruling Leo and Mars being exalted in Cancer. Maybe this topsy turvy astrology is mixing me up but I see these as quite different solutions to the same problem. As I view it the second approach (McCann/Campanella) poses more practical difficulties in terms of our traditional understanding of the signs. Cardano's suggestion at least has the advantage of simplicity and logical consistency if we are going to argue the tropical zodiac needs to reflect seasonal reality across the planet.

Still, relatively few southern hemiphere astrologers seem to have rejected the northern hemisphere focus of classical astrology. This either confirms that a universalized approach to signs works best or that relatively few astrologers stop to seriously investigate this basic premise of astrology.

Mark

MarkC wrote:
However, is it really an identical result? In the first approach which you suggest might (?) have been accepted by Ptolemy and Cardano certainly did support, the order of signs is reversed to reflect the different seasons in the southern hemisphere. Thus Aries becomes Libra, Aquarius becomes Leo etc to reflect the changes in the seasons/solar declination. This approach still preserves the traditional planetary rulers and their dignities. The second approach suggested by McCann today (and Campanella?) keeps the same order of signs as in the northern hemisphere but reverses the planetary rulers and the dignities of the planets in these signs. Thus in the second approach we need to get our head around Saturn ruling Leo and Mars being exalted in Cancer.
Mark

But in practice it's the same.
In the southern hemisphere we can call Libra the first 30 degrees of ecliptic when the Sun starts its positive declination, and say this is Mars sign and Venus detriment as Campanella and Placido.

Or call these first 30 degrees Aries, Mars sign and Venus detriment.
If you are telling the second option is easier, true

margherita

But in practice it's the same.
In the southern hemisphere we can call Libra the first 30 degrees of ecliptic when the Sun starts its positive declination, and say this is Mars sign and Venus detriment as Campanella and Placido.

Or call these first 30 degrees Aries, Mars sign and Venus detriment.
If you are telling the second option is easier, true

Hi Margherita,

Call me a pedant, dogmatist or just Taurus rising but I do not agree the two options are in practice the same. They lead to practical differences in how a chart would be interpreted. Certainly, if we adopt the approach suggested by Maurice McCann. McCann suggests the nature of the signs remained unchanged even with the dignities different. So Libra still retains its essential qualities but its ruler is Mars.

Lets take the example of someone born with Sun in Virgo in the southern hemisphere system A (Cardano). This approach creates a clear split between northern and southern births. Hence a child born just south of the Equator would be a tropical Virgo while just north of the equator would be a Pisces. Thus children born on the equator at the same moment could have reversed charts.

System B (Campanella/Placido/McCann) would keep the unity of a Sun in Virgo person in both hemispheres. This system is only the same in practice if the nature of the signs changes to their opposite like the dignities. Libra thereby becomes Aries in all but name. I dont know what Campanella or Placido said but this is not the approach of Maurice McCann. He emphasizes the traditional meanings of the signs remain unaltered even though the planetary rulers and dignities switch over.

In the end though this whole discussion is quite theoretical. Astrologers in Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa and South America seem to almost all prefer the universalized approach to signs. Whatever , the apparent logic of reversing signs or dignities the practical experiece of the overwhelminging majority of astrologers seems to be that the traditional approach to signs and dignities still 'works' in southern hemisphere charts. On this issue at least maybe Morin's view does come closer to the actual experience of working astrologers. I suppose this is the point where the sceptic would ask ..'but would they also find the charts 'working' if they had been taught to reverse the signs in the first place?

MarkC wrote:
Call me a pedant, dogmatist or just Taurus rising but I do not agree the two options are in practice the same. They lead to practical differences in how a chart would be interpreted. Certainly, if we adopt the approach suggested by Maurice McCann. McCann suggests the nature of the signs remained unchanged even with the dignities different. So Libra still retains its essential qualities but its ruler is Mars.

Aah, now understand.... you are right, not pedant. I'm not sure McCann says the same as Campanella now....

I'm not sure whatever follower of Ptolemy, like Campanella or Placido, could say Libra in the northern hemisphere is like in the southern one.
It's because what you wrote in the preceding posts, in Ptolemy qualities of the signs depend on the position of the Sun, i.e declination/season. They change with seasons, whatever name you call it.

margherita

I have just checked the eclipse chart against the 1066 chart for England.The eclipse at 29D cancer is right opposite England's Venus.
On 18th at about 03:35 the moon conjuncts the pleiades and it looks close enough to occlude Alcyone and the node is close to England's Venus too.
It must mean something.

Matt

Thanks Matt,

Here is a link to the 1066 chart:

http://members.tripod.com/tra_nations/a_england.html

Venus is the 7th house ruler and placed in the 10th house (whole sign) and the 11th (Placidus houses). Its sextile the Moon in the radix. Although mercury rules the 2nd house with Placidus ( just!) many systems would assign Venus as Lord 2. Military issues, financial upsets and government cuts all seem potential here.

We are already seeing the war in Afghanistan move to the centre of political stage for the first time since British military involvement in 2001. The sharply, escalating rate of British military casualities has already started to turn a lot of public opinion against the war. The current military operation in Helmand province 'Panther's claw' is taking a heavy toll of UK military personnel. UK casualities in Afghanistan have already exceeded those in Iraq. This is more remarkable when you consider there were hardly any losses before 2006.

The eclipse could indicate further set backs or even more serious public disquiet about the war. The opposition Conservative party are blaming Gordon's Brown's government for under-resourcing our soldiers so that they lack sufficient air cover with helicopters or the resiliant enough vehicles to resist roadside bombs. The UK military losses are being compared unfavourably with the provisioning of US forces in Afghanistan.

Venus in the 11th represents the government's finances/resources. The government has already announced a review of defence spending. For the first time in decades there is serious discussion of abandoning the Nuclear deterent. Failing this its looking like a straight choice between conventional forces on the ground and cancelling two proposed Aircraft carriers that involve a lot of jobs.

More generally, the International Monetary fund has declared the cuts proposed by Gordon's Brown's government as far too modest to meet the challenge of the the mountain of debt the UK now has following the bail out of several banks last October. A further financial crisis caused by lack of foreign investor confidence is not implausible. This could be precipitated by a run on the pound. At the very least this could indicate the sweeping cuts in UK public spending which all analysts are agreed is now essential.

While I think that the exaltations were originally meant to be related to the northern hemisphere and therefore a flip over in the southern hemisphere would seem very logic, problems rise at the equator.

Is there a sudden change when you cross the equator or a smooth one. In the latter case the Sun would be a bit exalted in Aries and a bit exalted in Libra and a bit in fall in Aries and in Libra.

Applied to the eclipse with the exalted Moon in Cancer, she would do less good in Australia, South Africa etc and at the equator be in balance.

I don't know the chart of the Netherlands but as it is said to be a Cancer country, or at least the West part (Holland) the eclipse could said to be important over here.

While I think that the exaltations were originally meant to be related to the northern hemisphere and therefore a flip over in the southern hemisphere would seem very logic, problems rise at the equator.

That may or may not be correct. I know some Babylonian scholars support the idea the exaltations were orginally seasonal in origin. However, as I recall Maurice McCann doesn?t propose reversing the exaltations. He only proposes doing this with the domicile rulerships/detriment/fall. This is because McCann proposes these should directly flip over to reflect the change of the Sun?s declination. This connection is not so immediately evident with the exaltations.

Is there a sudden change when you cross the equator or a smooth one. In the latter case the Sun would be a bit exalted in Aries and a bit exalted in Libra and a bit in fall in Aries and in Libra.

A perfect compromise sure to appeal to any self respecting Libra! I suppose the simple flip over of signs suffers similar astronomical problems at the equator?

I don't know the chart of the Netherlands but as it is said to be a Cancer country, or at least the West part (Holland) the eclipse could said to be important over here.

Dont forget Scotland which is all traditionally linked to the sign Cancer! However, it would be hard to top the total disaster almost wiping out The Scottish Banking sector last October.

The forthcoming eclipse does seem a particularly significant one. Not only is it the longest of the 21st century, but it also comes close to a very sensitive point on the Cancer-Capricorn axis left by the brightest Comet of the last 40 years.

I am aware most astrologers tend to forget about comets once they have come and gone. However, traditional authorities such as Lilly suggest that a bright comet has an astrological effect extending for one year for every day it was naked eye visible.

There are obviously numerous approaches to delineating comets. However, one simple method I have found especially effective is to give particular focus to the degrees of the zodiac a comet has reached its maximum magnitude in. This is a visual astrology technique that has an ancient astrological background. Its quite different from the approach of modern ?Deep Space? astrologers who tend to give more weight to the astronomically significant moment of Perihelion. This is when a comet becomes closest to the Sun. For ancient, medieval and renaissance astrologers comets only had influence when they were naked eye visible.

Comet McNaught appeared during early 2007 and was the brightest comet since 1965. It was first sighted to naked eye observers on 26/12/06 and faded from view for northern hemisphere views after 14/01/2007. However, it was visible to southern hemisphere observers until the end of February.

McNaught was a ?Great comet? due its naked eye visibility in daylight. For some reason it never reached the fame of less bright comets like Hale-Bopp. Probably because Hale-Bopp was visible for an unprecedented amount of time and because the trajectory of McNaught relative to the earth meant it appeared too close to the Sun to be seen much of the time. It was best observed in the early morning or late evening.

Its notable that comet McNaught became brightest in the northern hemisphere on the 13-14th January 2007 when it reached a magnitude of -6.0. On these dates Comet McNaught was located at 27.54 and 28.53 Capricorn. Moreover, comet McNaught crossed the ecliptic on 14/01/2007. I would therefore suggest the astrological influence of this comet was strongest here both due to brightness and proximity to the ecliptic.

My research indicates that this comet , along with Comet Holmes in 2007-08, were the major catalysts of the current financial crisis. I also believe they provide insights on recent political events in countries such as Sri Lanka and Iran. I hope to demonstrate this in an article on skyscript when I have more time for astrology.