Graham wrote:

And because it relates to the numeral 1, it's the first sign of the zodiac? You can't get away with circular reasoning!

That's not the way it is, Graham. Each sign is an entire complex of meaning with symbolism related to the sign's energy, ruling and exalted planets, stars, etc. Number one, for example, has a specific meaning, and this meaning has to relate to the general expression of the sign as we observe it operating in the lives of individuals.

Graham, I'm not sure if you have a preferred zodiac for your work? If you're familiar with the tropical zodiac and know people with stelliums in Taurus (sky area of sidereal Aries) in key positions, you can get a sense of the energy of One. And you can see how Pluto's mythology in some ways can have a relationship to One and the Ram, Aries---an affinity if not rulership.

The definition of each number has to match the symbolism and expression of the signs throughout the zodiac. This is easily observed when considering biographies of individuals with a prominent sign of the zodiac in their birth charts.

There is a problem, however, beyond the odd-male and even-female symbolism because there are various definitions of numbers within the astrological community and sometimes throughout history.

How does sidereal Taurus reflect number two? Then we have to ask what are the characteristics of being female? The triplicity lords of Taurus are the Moon and Venus, both feminine planets. This is where I"ve turned to John Gray as well as ancient writings for an explanation of "even" or "female" and "odd" or male.

A note on zodiac glyphs:

The origin of many of these is unknown. But today they reflect areas of the body as pointed out in various texts.

Aries: eyebrows and nose
Taurus: chin and neck
Gemini: two arms

Cancer: breast
Leo: stomach
Virgo: intestines (below stomach)

Libra: lower back (lumbar region)
Scorpio: genital area
Sagittarius: hips, thighs (motion, thighs move the body)

Capricorn: knees (such a complicated glyph!)
Aquarius: calves, ankles (walking motion)
Pisces: feet, moving in opposite directions for walking

From these we have the relationship of the astrological houses to parts of the body.

And aren't we doing great as a cohesive community if we can't even agree on the zodiac as symbolizing parts of the human body? Numerous illustrations throughout history align body parts with signs of the zodiac. Reproductions taken from historical texts are always found in coffee table books on astrology.

Hello Paul and Th?r?se

All the quotes that are "inside" the posts are from Th?r?se, as far as I can find. At her suggestion, I transfered everything from another thread, which is why it's all become a bit unclear, but this "mass importation" wasn't quite what she had in mind (understandably).

I'm afraid this post is getting a bit out of hand for me, as I'm not really interested in number symbolism or the mythological associations of the constellations, or possible relations of the outer planets to signs of the zodiac, or the glyphs for the signs. I find I've got enough just with the 7 classical planets and their rulerships, and the nodes, with consideration of the 3 main outers if singificantly placed but without associating them with signs.

I don't really want to get drawn into discussions about the overlay of tropical/sidereal, as I prefer just to stick to sidereal, so I think I'll leave my contribution there. Sorry if it's all rather a shambles, feel free to edit or remove anything if you like.

Graham

Graham, I'm confused. If you relinquish all the usual sign symbolism and structure, how do you interpret signs of the sidereal zodiac and keep them distinct and separate one from another?

I know this is getting off topic, but as forums go, one thought leads to another. I suppose you might say that numbers don't need to relate to signs?

Therese

Talking about a possible rulership of Pluto in Aries, you refer to the myth of Persephone and Pluton. In the light of this story, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that to Pluto belongs the time when nature is "going underground" (Scorpio) than the time when she sprouts (Aries)?

Michael wrote:

Talking about a possible rulership of Pluto in Aries, you refer to the myth of Persephone and Pluton. In the light of this story, wouldn't it be more logical to assume that to Pluto belongs the time when nature is "going underground" (Scorpio) than the time when she sprouts (Aries)?

The sidereal zodiac doesn't use seasonal symbolism which right away brings up the problem of the southern hemisphere which has been discussed elsewhere on Skyscript. Symbolically seed doesn't sprout in Aries. It's still underground.

The Persephone myth relates to abduction rather than being "underground" as such....the disappearance of someone as in the Chandra Levy case. One reason Pluto may have an association with Aries is that ONE is the unmanifest or hidden. Sidereal Scorpio is a very active "out there" sign, very expressive, the primary sign for Mars.

Therese, thank you. You began this thread with a question of mine on another thread, and your question just above (about ?relinquishing all the usual symbolism and structure? of the zodiac) basically sums up that original question of mine, in a broader sense. And it was exactly this broader sense that I was coming from. You ask the same question I was curious about.

Graham wrote:

Yes, I'm coming to that conclusion too. Regulus was definiteley a marker, as it's name implies and the leader of the four "royal" cornerstone stars (with Antares, Fomalhaut and Alebaran), which later came to mark the four "fixed"signs. One also feels that the first segment should be ruled by the Sun. 0? Leo is also the start of one the three (out of 27) Indian nakshatra which conventionally start at 0? of one of the 12 signs (the others are Aries and Sagittarius). (Though rulership of Magha, the 0? Leo nakshatra, is conventionally given to Ketu, the south node, while Krittika/Peiades, which straddles 0? Taurus, is ruled by the Sun, and was definitely considered the first of the series in the past - so the plot thickens!)
But the 0 Leo / 0 Magha overlay might suggest that the fitting of the 27 nakshatra into the 12 signs, which has been contested as an awkward compromise, might be appropriate - not firstly because of the perfect fit in Aries, but rather that in Leo.

I assume you are aware that the occult Golden Dawn movement adopted the same view? They treated Leo as the first sign and this seemed to relate more to the sidereal zodiac with a focus on Regulus or Cor Leonis 'The heart of the Lion'.

Just a slight note of caution about the 'Four Royal Stars' argument. Its certainly there in sources like Firmicus or Hephaistio. However, the idea that these 4 stars relate to the Four Royal stars of ancient Persia is totally spurious. Sadly even supposed experts on fixed stars such as Bernadette Brady have perpetuated this historical fallacy.

However, surely, our oldest astrological sources all point to the cardinal signs as the effective beginnings of the signs?

This seems to be a basic idea of Babylonian astrology. The Roman writer Seneca, had access to the ancient Babylonian astrologer Berossus? original papyrus manuscript of his History of Babylon known as the Babyloniaca. The work now only exists in fragments but Seneca stated that Berossus assigned a great cosmic cycle timed between great conjunctions of all the planets in Capricorn and Cancer. When all the planets line up in Cancer, Berossus apparently stated we can expect a great fire or conflagration. When all the planets conjoin in Capricorn, we should expect a great flood or deluge. Hence the great flood had coincided with a previous great conjunction of planets in Capricorn. Seneca goes on the justify this view by stating ?They are zodiacal signs of great power, seeing that they are the determining influences in the two great changes of the year.? (Seneca, qtd. in Campion, The Great Year, p. 67).

Seneca wasn't influenced by tropical astrology. He was writing in the century before Ptolemy was even born. However, its interesting that he links these cardinal signs to changes in the seasons. He alsoclearly sees the cardinal signs as powerful. I think this is one of many examples that ancient people didn't perceive a rigid split between the zodiac and the seasons.

There is also the Thema Mundi which posits Cancer as the ascendant of the World Horoscope. For the siderealist it seems to me there are two possible responses here.

Either to dismiss that the Thema Mundi ever had a seasonal association in the first place. If that is so though doesn't this strengthen the argument for having a traditionally cardinal sign starting the zodiac?

The alternative is to take the view that there that Thema Mundi was a based on a mixture of both sidereal and seasonal logic. In which case shouldn't one of the mutable sidereal signs be a starting point at present?

Mark

Mark, interesting post. Thanks. You wrote:

Just a slight note of caution about the 'Four Royal Stars' argument. Its certainly there in sources like Firmicus or Hephaistio. However, the idea that these 4 stars relate to the Four Royal stars of ancient Persia is totally spurious.

This is news to me. Do you mean that there never were "Four Royal Stars of Persia?" Please give your source so I can read about this and add it to my files.

However, surely, our oldest astrological sources all point to the cardinal signs as the effective beginnings of the signs?

This seems to be a basic idea of Babylonian astrology. The Roman writer Seneca, had access to the ancient Babylonian astrologer Berossus'original papyrus manuscript of his History of Babylon known as the Babyloniaca. The work now only exists in fragments but Seneca stated that Berossus assigned a great cosmic cycle timed between great conjunctions of all the planets in Capricorn and Cancer. When all the planets line up in Cancer, Berossus apparently stated we can expect a great fire or conflagration. When all the planets conjoin in Capricorn, we should expect a great flood or deluge.

So much for Cancer relating to water and Capricorn to earth. But we know that Capricorn is located in the part of the sky related to the sea, and Capricorn was originally the sea goat with a fish tail.

Of course your post was addressed to Graham. I'm not an expert on either Seneca or the Thema Mundi, but I doubt that the Thema Mundi (Horoscope of the World) had any relationship to seasons. I believe that only astrologers who have studied with Robert Schmidt or seen his writings are familiar with the Thema Mundi, so Fagan school astrologers may not know about the Thema Mundi. (I'm assuming for the moment that Graham is on the western Sidereal track?)

Therese Hamilton wrote:

This is news to me. Do you mean that there never were "Four Royal Stars of Persia?" Please give your source so I can read about this and add it to my files.

The stars used in ancient Persia were more guardians or watchers of the of the night sky rather than ?royal stars?. The identification of what these stars ( or asterisms) were has been a subject of academic debate for decades.

There is absolutely no evidence they were all linked into the ecliptic. If anything current scholarship seems to be leaning towards the view that Sirius was one of these watchers. It was undeniably very important in ancient Persian religion (as it was in ancient Egypt). There is also a fair amount of support for Ursa Major as another one of the Persian watchers or guardians.

There seems to be a widespread confusion in the astrological community today that the 4 guardians/watchers of ancient Persia are synonymous with the 4 royal stars of Hellenistic astrology. This is a misconception I have seen repeated by some of the biggest names in astrology today. I will not embarrass them all by setting out a list of names here!

One of the principle sources that seems to have disseminated this error was the book Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning, by Richard Hinckley Allen, (1899, 1963). The book relied on many older sources that have subsequently been academically discredited. In this context the theories of the 18th century French astronomer Jean Bailly appears to have been the first to suggest that Aldebaran, Antares, Formalhaut, and Regulus were the four 'royal stars' of ancient Persia.

Hinckley Allen seems to have been an important influence on Vivian Robson in the writing of his famous book ?The Fixed Stars and Constellations in Astrology?. Robson?s book was published in 1923 before any modern scholarship had examined the issue in depth.

The first article to challenge such ideas appeared about 70 years ago and was written by George A. Davis, Jr., who published an article entitled The So Called Royal Stars of Persia, Popular Astronomy, vol. LIII, No 4, April 1945. Important recent research into this topic has come from the Italian academic Antonio Panaino. For example, "Tistrya, Part 1: The Avestan hymn to Sirius." (1990) and "Tistrya, Part 2: The Avestan hymn to Sirius." (1995).

Academics have come up with a wide variety of potential identifications of of the Persian leader stars (so-called four royal stars) which include: Tishtya which has been variously identified as Aldebaran, Sirius, Arcturus, and the Summer Solstice. Vanant (or Wanand) has been variously identified as Regulus, Vega, Altair (earlier Corvus), Sirius, and Procyon. Satavaesa (or Sadw?s) has been variously identified as Antares, Aldebaran, the stars of Musca Australis (the actual constellation being invented circa 1595), and Crux. The Haptoiringas (or Haftoreng) have been variously identified as Formalhaut, and Ursa Major. (The Haptoiringas are described in the Sirozas as a group of seven stars.)

In contrast the late Roman astrologer Firmicus Maternus certainly does discuss the so called four ?royal stars?: Aldebaran, Antares, Regulus and Folmalhaut linked to the fixed signs and all on the ecliptic.

I am not clear how old the idea of these 4 'royal stars' was in Hellenistic astrology. The sources I have seen are quite late ie Firmicus ( 4th century CE) or Hephaistio ( 5th century CE).

However, in the case of Regulus it was regarded as the ?King star? of Babylonian astrology. So ironically, this adds some weight to Graham's view about focusing exclusively on Regulus as a kind of alpha star of the whole zodiac.

That is as far as I want to be drawn on this topic here. I promised another member ages ago I would open a thread on the traditional forum on this topic and I think I would prefer to go into more detail/references there.

Mark wrote:

However, surely, our oldest astrological sources all point to the cardinal signs as the effective beginnings of the signs?

This seems to be a basic idea of Babylonian astrology. The Roman writer Seneca, had access to the ancient Babylonian astrologer Berossus'original papyrus manuscript of his History of Babylon known as the Babyloniaca. The work now only exists in fragments but Seneca stated that Berossus assigned a great cosmic cycle timed between great conjunctions of all the planets in Capricorn and Cancer. When all the planets line up in Cancer, Berossus apparently stated we can expect a great fire or conflagration. When all the planets conjoin in Capricorn, we should expect a great flood or deluge.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

So much for Cancer relating to water and Capricorn to earth.

Indeed. As you know the idea of linking in elements to signs is a relatively late development in Hellenistic astrology. Vettius Valens ( 2nd century CE) appears to be the first astrologer to make this link explicitly. His near contemporary Ptolemy makes no mention of the elements related to signs. Instead he links the triplicities to the older Babylonian tradition of the four directions/winds.

If we are trying to think like an ancient Babylonian astrologer (or early hellenistic) we must dispense with any ideas of signs linked to the four elements.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

But we know that Capricorn is located in the part of the sky related to the sea, and Capricorn was originally the sea goat with a fish tail.

Yes but the deeper question is surely why the sidereal signs of Capricorn and Aquarius had this association of being areas of the sky associated with the sea and water? In other words, why did this area of the sky (rather than any other) attract such myths from the Mesopotamians?

Some scholars who have studied the primary sources have suggested there was a seasonal connection here since the period before and after the winter solstice was linked with flooding in ancient Mesopotamia. Equally, at the time the Babylonian zodiac was formulated the summer solstice was in sidereal Cancer. Obviously, this was the hottest and driest time of the year. So it would make sense if fire/great heat was associated with the period around the summer solstice. This would make particular sense if the Mesopotamians assumed the equinoxes and solstices were fixed points in the constellations.

This kind of seasonal connection seemed fairly obvious to a classical source like Seneca (1st century CE). It seems quite probable that the ancient Mesopotamian understanding of the sidereal constellations incorporated seasonal considerations as an integral part of their thinking about the signs.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I doubt that the Thema Mundi (Horoscope of the World) had any relationship to seasons.

Here is a Wikipedia link on the Thema Mundi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi

That is not a topic I have a firm view on. Robert Schmidt has speculated that the Thema Mundi may not be based on a seasonal basis in old forum post I have read. However, he has never formally published his views on this issue in a way that would be open to proper academic scrutiny and debate.

Therese Hamilton wrote:

I believe that only astrologers who have studied with Robert Schmidt or seen his writings are familiar with the Thema Mundi

I think several other people in the astrological community have equal competence to comment on such things. However, relatively, few astrologers have seriously acquainted themselves with these ancient sources. I confess I am not one of those people at present.

Mark

Mark wrote:

The stars used in ancient Persia were more guardians or watchers of the of the night sky rather than "royal stars." The identification of what these stars ( or asterisms) were has been a subject of academic debate for decades.

Quite an interesting and comprehensive history you've presented here, Mark. Perhaps to finish off this topic for those who are interested, it's best to simply take excerpts from the Bundahishn, "Primal Creation" collections of Zoroastrian cosmogony and cosmology. (Wiki reference here gives dates for Bundahishn manuscripts:1540 and 1734; However, Wiki should always be checked against other sources.)

BEGIN QUOTE:

From Chapter 2 of the Bundahishn:

2. First he produced the celestial sphere, and the constellation stars are assigned to it by him; especially these twelve whose names are Varak (the Lamb), Tora (the Bull), Do-patkar (the Two-figures or Gemini), Kalachang (the Crab), Sher (the Lion), Khushak (Virgo), Tarazhuk (the Balance), Gazdum (the Scorpion), Nimasp (the Centaur or Sagittarius), Vahik (Capricorn), Dul (the Water-pot), and Mahik (the Fish);

3. which, from their original creation, were divided into the twenty-eight subdivisions of the astronomers, of which the names are Padevar, Pesh-Parviz, Parviz, Paha, Avesar, Beshn, Rakhvad, Taraha, Avra, Nahn, Miyan, Avdem, Mashaha, Spur, Husru, Srob, Nur, Gel, Garafsha Varant, Gau, Goi, Muru, Bunda, Kahtsar, Vaht, Miyan, Kaht.

4. And all his original creations, residing in the world, are committed to them; so that when the destroyer arrives they overcome the adversary and their own persecution, and the creatures are saved from those adversities.

5. As a specimen of a warlike army, which is destined for battle, they have ordained every single constellation of those 6480 thousand small stars as assistance; and among those constellations four chieftains, appointed on the four sides, are leaders.

6. On the recommendation of those chieftains the many unnumbered stars are specially assigned to the various quarters and various places, as the united strength and appointed power of those constellations.

7. As it is said that Tishtar is the chieftain of the east, Sataves the chieftain of the west, Vanand the chieftain of the south, and Haptoring the chieftain of the north.

Then in Chapter 5 (1.) we find this thought provoking passage:

"Seven chieftains of the planets have come unto the seven chieftains of the constellations, as the planet Mercury (Tir) unto Tishtar, the planet Mars (Warharan) unto Haptoring, the planet Jupiter (Ohrmazd) unto Vanand, the planet Venus (Anahid) unto Sataves, the planet Saturn (Kevan) unto the great one of the middle of the sky...."

END QUOTES from Avesta -- Zoroastrian Archives (link)

And from here we have the various opinions and research of scholars mentioned in Mark's preceding post and in Richard Hinckley Allen's Star Names, linking various stars to the four Persian chieftains in chapter 2.

Mark wrote:

However, surely, our oldest astrological sources all point to the cardinal signs as the effective beginnings of the signs?

This seems to be a basic idea of Babylonian astrology. The Roman writer Seneca, had access to the ancient Babylonian astrologer Berossus? original papyrus manuscript of his History of Babylon known as the Babyloniaca. The work now only exists in fragments but Seneca stated that Berossus assigned a great cosmic cycle timed between great conjunctions of all the planets in Capricorn and Cancer. When all the planets line up in Cancer, Berossus apparently stated we can expect a great fire or conflagration. When all the planets conjoin in Capricorn, we should expect a great flood or deluge. Hence the great flood had coincided with a previous great conjunction of planets in Capricorn. Seneca goes on the justify this view by stating ?They are zodiacal signs of great power, seeing that they are the determining influences in the two great changes of the year.? (Seneca, qtd. in Campion, The Great Year, p. 67).

Mark

I don't know if someone already mentioned, but Cancer and Capricorn are the gates of men and the gates of Gods in the very famous Homer's cave of Nymphs.

margherita