Hello Mark,

Re: "I think Atlantean has been totally up front about not being a traditional astrologer so it is hardly surprising his comments dont coincide with normal expectations on a traditional thread."

Yes, I was very clear on that point in the very beginning.

I don't want to be in the foreground in this discussion... I find middle to background more fitting here.

From reading many of the responses...it appears that we find some (seemingly) objective quality in Richard Nixon and then each sets about finding that "quality" through some astrological rationalization. Though it appears objective, it is (imo) far too subjective to really lead to a definitive answer.

If we say he is overly-Saturnian, Tropical astrologers will see the heavy presence of Saturn and the overly abundant Capricornian influence in his chart and see it there. Sidereal astrologers will apparently look elsewhere to find the same quality.

This reminds me far too much of many writings (justifications) on rectifications of famous people. Individual methods are chosen and then each astrologer justifies his final result on his own terms. I have a feeling that the same way that a particular celebrity has a particular birthtime, that EITHER the sidereal positions are correct OR the tropical positions are correct. IF this is not the case, then the two methods would have to be almost completely dissimilar in their analysis.

Since we don't want to get into the circular argument of WHETHER Sagittarius means this or Capricorn means that, then we have to approach the whole topic based on what we have in front of us... If two people are sitting in a room and one says "the car in the driveway is mostly blue" and the other person says "the car in the driveway is mostly orange", we have only TWO possibilities... ONE OF THEM IS RIGHT or BOTH OF THEM ARE WRONG...there is no "both of them are right option" since the car cannot simultaneously be mostly blue and mostly orange. Since I am assuming that Sagittarius cannot equal Capricorn, I believe we have the same circumstance here.

As Traditional approaches appear to be very varied (hence the different takes on Richard Nixon from several Traditional astrologers), it appears that no matter what quality we deduce from Nixon, the man,...we can find some justification for it in Nixon, the astrology.

It is starting (to me) to look like some other choices for examples might be more immediately definitive in this comparison. Aren't there any celebrity figures with a mega-stellium in the first 2/3 of a sign? Wouldn't someone with Sun, the Moon, Mercury, and Venus in Aries be distinguishable from someone with the same planets in Pisces???

Pure ascendants are often visually discernible. How does this fit into this discussion? When my Aries rising client, with no planets strongly coloring the Ascendant, shows up and has red hair, a ruddy complexion, freckles and a very prominent nose and I am not at all surprised...how do I reconcile this with the idea that they even could be Pisces rising?

Aren't there several traditional sources who try to differentiate between rising sign qualities in terms of appearance? Surely it is somewhere in Christian Astrology? How does this fit in with the idea that the very obvious Aries is "actually" a Pisces?

I am trying to be open about this idea, as I have great respect for Cyril Fagan and use several techniques directly derived from him (though I use them in the Tropical with the precession expunged), but using my methods, any chart I pull in using the sidereal positions is unreadable in terms of what is normally very reliable in the Tropical.

Any ideas?

My own chart is very interesting in terms of this, since I have Mercury in Gemini (Taurus sidereally), Jupiter in Pisces (Aquarius sidereally). Additionally, the Moon is in Cancer and Saturn is in Aquarius, but those don't move to dissimilar signs when making the sidereal adjustment. Surely with Mercury in its own sign (tropically) or NOT (sidereally) and Jupiter in its own sign (tropically) or NOT (sidereally), there should be some OBVIOUS differences in this (in things relating to these two planets and my life), should there not???

Peace

James

James summarises my view of this too, although I'd probably go further in saying I don't believe that any astrological judgement can be judged in purely objective terms - we can agree on general principles but the consciousness and individual approach of the astrologer is never outside of the process. A sidereal astrologer once took it on himself to send me a copy of my chart in the sidereal zodiac and gave a report of why he believed it gave a better description of me than a tropical chart. I couldn't relate to it half as well as I can relate to my own understanding of my chart using my own system but to be fair he did a good job and picked up many pertinent points, and he was good in knowing how to place the focus on angularity and planetary interactions - they stand up in most approaches (closest aspect; planets on angles ... always reliable). This is a very interesting exercise but my own belief is 1) it won?t prove anything 2) no one knows my chart as well as I do

To qualify 1 - I think it is a red herring to assume that both zodiacs can?t be right so one must be right and the other must be wrong. They can both be right if the astrologer understands the basis of the symbolism they are working with and what they are doing with it. Equally they can both be wrong if misapplied. Let's remember that the problems of precession cut both ways; the tropical zodiac loses alignment with the constellations which certainly influenced the development of the original sign symbolism; the sidereal zodiac loses touch with the seasonal significance that was part and parcel of the original ecliptic based system and also certainly influenced the development of the original sign symbolism. It is only modern sidereal astrology that has a reason to dissociate its techniques from the seasonal symbolism ? this was not an issue that ancient astrologers had to worry about, nor something that they strove to do. They blissfully used the system created in their own time, as it worked in their own time in all respects. And we are all 'precessional losers' in some respects.

I see a lot of parallels between this issue and the debates on house systems. I always thought it was curious that an astrologer like Masha'allah felt it useful to use more than one definition of houses simultaneously in the same chart judgement. For me, one approach applied consistently is all an astrologer needs - but who can say that their astrology is better than someone else's astrology because of the house system they prefer? Can different approaches both be right? Yes, I think they can (...if the astrologer knows what s/he is doing and why) ...

Mark wrote:Therese wrote:

In Nixon's chart the Sun and Jupiter are very powerful in Sagittarius.

Are you considering sect in this assessment? I thought your approach was strongly influenced by hellenistic astrology?

Certainly Jupiter is very dignified. However, its out of sect in this chart.

Looking at the Sun we would have had a much better indication of eminence sidereally if this had been a day chart. Abu Ali Al Khayyat's suggests its best to have a luminary in its exalted sign according to sect-especially in the 1st or 10th house. He does also mention having a royal sign (Leo) on the ASC with its ruler in the 1st or 10th in a day chart. Like the hellenistic astrologers Abu Ali Al Khayyat's gives strong consideration to sect with more focus on the Moon in a night chart. Thus from a traditional perspective the Sun in a night chart and in a non-angular house would appear less convincing as an eminence marker in this chart.

Well, if we want to have Leo rising and the Sun in Sagittarius disposted by Jupiter in its domicile and triplicity, we're never going to have the Sun above the horizon, just like with Leo rising and the Sun in Aries, the Sun will never be below the horizon.

So having the Sun above the horizon is only one of several kinds of dignities. Morin may have a very important point with his emphasis on houses in trine to one-another. They all share in the energy, so to speak. So the 5th and 9th houses are always important in relation to ascendant strength.

It's the same principle as the Sun in the same astrological sign for an entire month. There have to be ways of modifying that position. So we have the bounds (terms) and dispositors, and India goes even further with several ways to cancel the debilitation of the Sun and planets.

An added strength in Nixon's sidereal chart is that Jupiter, Mercury and Mars are all in the terms of Jupiter. I've been experimenting with terms, and it seems as if a planet has added strength when several planets are in that planet's terms, as if they are soldiers supporting the planet ruling the terms. In this case Jupiter has mega strength since the Lot of Fortune is also in Jupiter's terms.

Jupiter, of course, is the planet of politicians according to the Gauquelins, and in Nixon's chart it disposits the Sun.

And reading the passage Mark has read from, we are looking at a best case scenario for eminence when these planets are configured in such a way.

Nixon was President for 6 years, not King for life or anything, I wouldn't expect him to have ticked all of the boxes Abu Ali proposes. He has sufficient power in his chart for where he reached. The lord of the Asc is powerful as is its dispositor. The lord of Spirit is with the Lot of Exaltation while its own lord is upon it in a beneficial house. The 2nd trigon lord of the Moon is pivotal and in her own bounds while she rules the 10th sign and acts as spear-bearer for the Sect Light. That there are important planets in their detriments is testimony to the fall he eventually suffered, in my opinion, but hey, I'm with Deb here in that both zodiacs "work" so I don't see the need for the almost compulsive comparison and expected defence of a system which is ultimately the individual astrologer's choice to use.

msg deleted

James wrote:

Wouldn't someone with Sun, the Moon, Mercury, and Venus in Aries be distinguishable from someone with the same planets in Pisces???

Not necessarily true if you have been following this discussion. The sidereal view I hold for signs is that tropical astrologers are seeing the underlying sidereal sign characteristics. Mark quoted Sari M. on the same point.

GR wrote:Hi Therese,

I don't know if we can put Latin astrology back to the 6th century? That really doesn't get going until the introduction of Arabic astrological texts in the 12th C. Until then it seems that astrology is just dormant in the Latin West. The Byzantine Greeks, however, practiced it until the fall of Constantinople. And then there's the point in Arabic astrology where it gets re-conceptualized and thus breaks off from the Hellenistic strand, around the time of Al-Kindi & Abu Mashar. So yeah, it gets more & more complicated.

My standard reference is Rob Hand's Chronology of the Astrology of the Middle East and the West by Period. Published by ARHAT. But yes, Latin period astrology didn't really "get going" until later. Ben Dykes notes Hugo of Santilla (1119-1151) and John of Seville c. 1150. Then Bonatti wasn't until the following century. I'm constantly checking Rob Hand's book for dates and astrologers, so I'm no expert on dates.

Hello Therese,

Re: "...tropical astrologers are seeing the underlying sidereal sign characteristics..."

This is getting confusing... Okay, let me try to appreciate your point. The first step, understanding it.

The tropical astrologers are seeing a planet/point in a sign. That planet/point is colored by which sign it is in. So if we have the Sun and Ascendant in mid-Cancer, we are actually seeing the qualities of sidereal Gemini???

But Cancer is all about emotional security, something very low on the list for Geminis... but of course, I am speaking about tropical Gemini. You seem to be saying that we are seeing sidereal Gemini when we see the planets (tropically) in Cancer. This seems to be implying that:

Sidereal Gemini = Tropical Cancer

IF we assume that this is the case, that there is a sidereal Gemini which has the basic properties of tropical Cancer, then they won't be properly aligned until 0? tropical Cancer is at 0? sidereal Gemini. ie. explain the mismatched overlap

Additionally, Cancers (tropical) exhibit qualities that match their "defining symbol" in the zodiac...I am a triple Cancer, I am positive on this point. ie. emotionally insecure Cancers, when "probed" withdraw and shell themselves off, just like a crab (or turtle) does

So the crab (or turtle) by necessity needs to be the animal assigned for sidereal Gemini???

If the tropical sign is paired up with the previous sidereal sign, then we have sidereally: (because the name of the sign must be matched with the animal/thing that has the correct traits for the qualities of that area of the zodiac)

Aries, the bull
Taurus, the twins
Gemini, the crab
Cancer, the lion
Leo, the virgin
Virgo, the scales
Libra, the scorpion
Scorpio, the hunter
Sagittarius, the goat
Capricorn, the water-bearer
Aquarius, the fish
Pisces, the ram

The tropical matches qualities with the correctly-named zodiacal animal/thing. Libra seeks to relate to all things, in so doing it finds its grail, balance. Balance is intimately tied to the symbolism of the scales. I don't see how balance (ie. the scales) can be intimately tied to any concept except Libra.

Right now, I am (personally) approaching this from a different angle. I am looking at decisive dynamic charts for events and seeing how often the normally reliable rulership networks fall apart by making the sidereal adjustment... more to come!

Peace

James

Sorry, I've not read all the replies in this thread yet, I posted at the beginning of the thread but then was sick for most of last week.

In response to my post, Deb says:

Deb wrote:Paul, I think she did explain that in her last post, but that might be more obvious after the response I'd like to make myself to Theresa.

But I don't think she did at all. She said that

That is not what I meant this thread to be about, Mark. I merely gave the introduction on the triplicities as a foundation for discussing traditional techniques in the sidereal. This was to try to avoid the confusion of sign meanings in the two zodiacs.

However what I think is clearer from the opening posts and many subsequent ones is that what's really wanting to be discussed isn't so much whether or not traditional techniques can be applied to the sidereal zodiac as much as a comparison between the sidereal astrologer's approach and the tropical astrologer's approach.

Out of that other discussion breeds a lot of confusion for me. In particular the discussion regarding the tropical shifting of sign meanings. I'm not convinced by this argument at all.

For example Martin Gansten says

We know that most Hellenistic astrologers seem not to have used Ptolemy's tropical zodiac; Persian astrology appears to have been all sidereal, and so is Indian astrology. Ptolemy found greater favour with later Arabic authors (and their Latin translators); but they simultaneously drew on non-Ptolemaic Hellenistic, Persian and Indian sources.

Which I don't disagree with, what I disagree with is that if this is the case then we can look to the persian astrologers and compare with, say, Lilly. Do the signs actually shift in meaning? As a control let's pro-cess as well as pre-cess to see if this is true.

If we accept the argument that tropical astrologers have been shifting the meaning of the signs to match the precessing sidereal signs, as put forth here by others, then we should see that the tropical qualities of Pisces should match the sidereal qualities of Aries.
From Vettius Valens, on sidereal Aries (Riley's translation):

Aries is the house of Mars, a masculine sign, tropic, terrestrial, governing, fiery, free, upward-trending,
semi-vocal, noble, changeable, procuratorial, public, civic, with few offspring, servile, the Midheaven of the
universe and the cause of rank, two-toned (since the sun and the moon make white lichen). It is also
unaspected and ecliptic. Depending on its relationship with the houseruler, men born under this sign will
be brilliant, distinguished, authoritarian, just, hard on offenders, free, governing, bold in thought, boastful,
great-hearted, restless, unstable, haughty, inflated, intimidating, /6K/ quickly changing, wealthy. When
the houserulers are favorably situated and have benefics in aspect, kings and powerful men are born, those
having the say over life and death.
/6P/ Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is
stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive.

With the exception of the apparent contradition of originally referring to Aries as fiery, and then later as watery (we can assume the latter is in relation to weather only?) we can clearly see that tropical Pisces does NOT resemble sidereal Aries.


Someone mentioned about how Scorpio is now considered erotic and sensual. But this is comparing traditional sidereal with modern tropical. In fact we see that even within tropical there is a discrepancy between traditional tropical and traditional modern - and it isn't to do with shifting zodiacs, but to do with the oversimplication of house-planet-sign.

So let's examine this one as well.
Sidereal Scorpio from the same translation of Valens:

Scorpio is the house of Mars, feminine, solid, rainy, fecund, destructive, downward-trending, mute,
servile, unchangeable, the cause of stenches, a destroyer of property, ecliptic, having many feet. Men born
under this sign are tricky, base, thieves, murderers, traitors, incorrigible, destroyers of property, connivers,
burglars, /11K/ perjurers, covetous of others? property, accomplices in murder, poisonings, and other
crimes, haters of their own family?3

Right, so how often is tropical Libra associated, in the tradition or otherwise, with men who are "base, thieves, murderers, traitors, incorrigible, destroyers of property, connivers, burglars, /11K/ perjurers, covetous of others? property, accomplices in murder, poisonings, and other
crimes, haters of their own family" etc?

Also sidereal scorpio is shown here as being 'unchangeable', and how about tropical Libra? Who ever considered it unchangeable?


So if we stick to traditional astrology as a better test, can someone demonstrate conclusively that the tropical descriptions has:
A) Changed noticeabley from the hellenistic period which Martin Gansten associates as being predominantly sidereal (ptolemy excepted)
B) That these changes match precession
C) That a similar theme isn't equally found by some arbitrary other sign to be used as a control, I suggest a 'pro'cessed sign to compare against a precessed sign.

If we can agree upon a traditional tropical source that would be good too. I would suggest Lilly for convenience.

I've never been compelled by the argument that tropical astrologers have shifted their meanings of the signs in correspondance to precession and whilst several have made the claim I'm not aware of any who demonstrated the claim.

It seems to me that the sign descriptions, whether they are in tropical or sidereal, are, more or less, the same. Of course sidereal astrologers have tried to remove the tropical considerations from their usage as would only be natural I guess.

As Paul has mentioned my name, I should like to clarify that I for one do not claim that the meanings of the signs have consistently changed in tropical astrology over time (making tropical Aries resemble sidereal Pisces, etc -- Paul has the order backwards). Some shifts in sign symbolism can be seen when we compare different epochs and cultures, but nothing as clear-cut as that.

Paul wrote:what I disagree with is that if this is the case then we can look to the persian astrologers and compare with, say, Lilly.

I don't really understand what this means. But comparing 'traditional tropical' and 'traditional sidereal' sources is problematic, for the simple reason that all traditional authors (including Lilly) rely for their descriptions on earlier sources which often go back to a time before the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs was commonly recognized.

Of course sidereal astrologers have tried to remove the tropical considerations from their usage as would only be natural I guess.

Just as tropical astrologers have tried to remove the emphasis on the stars contained within the signs, yes.

James wrote:

Hello Therese,

Re: "...tropical astrologers are seeing the underlying sidereal sign characteristics..."

This is getting confusing... Okay, let me try to appreciate your point. The first step, understanding it.

The tropical astrologers are seeing a planet/point in a sign. That planet/point is colored by which sign it is in. So if we have the Sun and Ascendant in mid-Cancer, we are actually seeing the qualities of sidereal Gemini???

Yes, but each sign has many variations. There is a section of this sign that tends toward the sensitive and insecure because of the lunar mansions and term variations. But with a heavy emphasis in this sign, you'll generally find that the person's activities are more Mercury related.

If you want to send me your data privately (eastwest9@snowcrest.net) I'll take a look at your chart. The PM function on this forum is extremely slow here in the U.S.

But Cancer is all about emotional security, something very low on the list for Geminis... but of course, I am speaking about tropical Gemini. You seem to be saying that we are seeing sidereal Gemini when we see the planets (tropically) in Cancer. This seems to be implying that:

Sidereal Gemini = Tropical Cancer

Yes.

IF we assume that this is the case, that there is a sidereal Gemini which has the basic properties of tropical Cancer, then they won't be properly aligned until 0? tropical Cancer is at 0? sidereal Gemini. ie. explain the mismatched overlap

Yes.

Additionally, Cancers (tropical) exhibit qualities that match their "defining symbol" in the zodiac..

.

This symbol is not always correctly understood, but tropical astrologers have become masters at making this match. If you read what I've written on the Sun and Moon, you see that the Sun (Leo) tends to avoid praise. (As Valens wrote) And so forth for other sign traits that have shifted over the centuries.

You know, this is all explained on my web site which is always noted at the bottom of my posts. If you're really interested, James, please scan the articles on my web site, and you can read the signs Aries, Taurus and Gemini. Some of the other signs aren't posted yet, though I have them typed in draft form. I should make it my priority to get them all on-line.

The tropical matches qualities with the correctly-named zodiacal animal/thing.

Acturally the sidereal signs better match the myths of the planets and constellations.

Libra seeks to relate to all things, in so doing it finds its grail, balance. Balance is intimately tied to the symbolism of the scales. I don't see how balance (ie. the scales) can be intimately tied to any concept except Libra.

The balance is the old symbol of law, just as the scales in the sky are. The "balancing" seen in tropical Libra is really the quality of Mercury to take on all forms. That sign is very variable and changeable and adjustable. This isn't Venus. This is Mercury.

Tropical Scorpio (sidereal Libra) is actually split roughly into two parts: The mansion of the north node which is related to the metaphysical, astrology, and so forth and Jupiter's mansion, which is more "fierce" and is often related to law. The first part of Scorpio lies in the stellar region of the feet of Virgo, and the second half of Scorpio lies in the area of the starry scales. I have a chart with the tropical dates for the lunar mansions on my web site.

Venus comes through in tropical Scorpio with the emphasis on relationships.

James, I've taken all the charts out of AstroDatabank with Sun, Moon and Ascendant in one sign. But please, before continuing this discussion, scan my web site so we're on the same page of understanding. Otherwise we'll just be having little differences without a basic understanding of the zodiacs.

Generally I don't have time on the internet until the middle of the night in Europe, so my responses may be delayed.

Peace back to you, James! Many thanks for your questions.
Therese

Paul, I'll respond to your post as soon as I can be on the internet again.

Therese