I thought readers here might be interested in this thread on the General Forum discussing the issue of the Tropical Zodiac and The Southern Hemisphere.

I am really, highlighting it because of some very interesting comments by Michael Sternrbach where he has set out a case for the the domicile rulerships and solar and lunar halves of the zodiac based on the order of the celestial spheres.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 8162#88162

Mark

Mark, I wonder if you could copy here your April 7 reply to Michael from the Southern Hemispehre topic--the reply which includes the rulership diagram? The subject is equally pertinent to both sidereal and tropical astrology, and your reply incudes the necessary quotes from Michael.

I've had to be away from the computer for the last days, so have some catching up to do.

Hello Therese,

Yes I agree the topic is of relevance to all astrologers irrespective of zodiac. The only difficulty I see is that Michael Sternbach isn't posting here so his replies will still be on the other thread. I think this is a legitimate topic for the traditional forum myself.

Here are the quotes from the other thread:

Michael Sternbach wrote:

For one thing, you could simply take Firmicus' Thema mundi and assign its sign rulers in their given order to the celestial spheres. This order (Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn) was in fact commonly used by pre-Ptolemaic astronomers. Perhaps, it even served as the model for the Thema mundi?

That is a nice insight about the Thema Mundi (Horoscope of The World)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thema_Mundi

Which ancient astronomers have you found setting out the luminaries together?

The Thema Mundi does seem very old. Later Roman sources such as Macrobius and Firmucus Maternus mention it. Vettius Valens in the 2nd century CE also discusses it in reference to the zodiac signs. The first astrologer we have a record of discussing it appears to be Tiberius Claudius Thrasyllus (d. 36 CE) who was the personal astrologer and advisor of the Emperor Tiberius (b.42 BCE?d.37 CE).

Michael Sternbach wrote:

However, a more sophisticated approach, taking into consideration the whole domicile scheme, will reveal that its solar hairesis (Leo to Capricorn) shows the planets in their true heliocentric order:
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.
On the other hand, its lunar hairesis (from Cancer backwards to Aquarius) shows them in the Ptolemaic / Chaldean / geocentric order:
Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn.

Inbetween Venus and Mars, in the first series, however, planet Earth is missing (since it's what we are standing on!), in the second series it's the Sun that is left out.

Brilliant! I am in your debt. Up to now I have never been able to really get a handle on the idea behind the concept of solar and lunar halves of zodiac. I understood the aspectual dimension of each luminary to signs but I confess I hadn't really thought out how both the solar and lunar halves of the zodiac related to the traditional order of the celestial spheres.

Your explanation makes perfect sense. It seems blindingly obvious the way you present it but I confess its escaped my notice before now. Have you come across any ancient sources explicitly giving this explanation for the scheme? Alternatively, any academic research setting out this view? I find it very interesting.

Thanks

Mark

Thank you, Mark. It may be another day or two before I can add a comment or two to this conversation.

Therese says:

Fagan clearly says here that sidereal and tropical signs of the same name are distinct from one another. Observational tropical traits align with the rulerships of the underlying sidereal signs, something I've noted for more than 35 years. It?s possible that those born after Cyril Fagan?s death in 1970 are completely unaware of this statement of Fagan?s and many other statements he made which were published in the 1960s and 70s.

I suppose this is where our differences lie. You accept a lot of tropical astrology. I do not. In fact, I'm even trying to free myself from its old ways of viewing and judging people, and trying to start completely afresh.

I read the Fagan quote. It's interesting because he seems to contradict himself. His own notes of (at least) the Moon signs, as well as the notes and statistics gathered from other sidereal astrologers who followed him (Gleadow, Jim Eshelman etc.) point to the sidereal signs being very different to their succeeding tropical signs (Tropical Gemini to Sidereal Taurus, Tropical Leo to Sidereal Cancer etc.).

I can't speak for every person who has made their observations - from my experience the similarity between sidereal signs and their tropical succeeding signs are similar only on a skin deep level. Beyond that, they are very different.

RodJM wrote:

Graham F wrote: If an Aries start indeed turns out to be the most reliable with tests like like this, makes you marvel at the coincidence: 2000 years ago, Aries was clearly and logically considered first simply because it contained the Spring equinox.

The problem I have with this, and I'm not alone with this one, is that Libra should be logically the first purely because the spring equinox occurs in the southern hemisphere and you could go on to say the Sun is gaining strength so we could conclude the Sun is exalted in Libra, at least from the southern hemisphere perspective.
If we are going to start using seasonal arguments to support claims of Aries Sun being exalted, then it makes no sense whatsoever to us down here in the southern parts of the Earth.
This is a phenomenon whereby modern western astrologers still clearly can't come up with a sound argument to satisfy all zodiacal interpretations anywhere on the Earth.
Unless this is settled, then modern western astrology is doomed to conjecture and lost in a quagmire of false realities.

I have similar premonitions. I am also concerned over how we can scientifically validate astrology (in it's ability to predict future events and help clients regarding personality and personal problems). And also, how we can use the scientific method to build on and refine astrology until it works much better.

I support the statistics of Papretis and those taken on Soluners the most, but even those merely point to a promising direction.

Because unfortunately right now astrology doesn't have the greatest track record. I'm ashamed to say Carl Sagan was right when he said that astrology used a lot of precise math but also a lot of fuzzy thinking.

If we can't make astrology scientifically valid with constant, specific, and repeatable results, it won't be of much use.

And we'll be doing the ancient Egyptians a great shame.

Mark wrote:

The ancient geocentric view would see the planets in the following order from earth: Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Just like in The Divine Comedy. That is how Dante ascends into heaven!
Moon - breakers of vows
Mercury - seekers of fame and glory
Venus - intemperate lovers
Sun - wise intellectuals
Mars - heroes and martyrs
Jupiter - just rulers
Saturn - the contemplatives

Sorry, about that. I'm a bit of a literature and history buff.

I have made a point of studying numerous southern hemisphere charts with a heavy sign emphasis and the traditional zodiac seems to work well while reversing the signs seems to totally conflict with the dominant natal characteristics. If there are any southern hemisphere astrologers reversing the tropical zodiac they must be very few and far between. I have discussed this with Latin Americans, South Africans and those from Australia and New Zealand. We literally just had a thread on this topic on the General forum so I will say no more on that here.

Speaking of which Mark, do the signs and planetary rulerships change at all in the southern hemisphere? That's something that seems rather worth knowing.

Bogdan574 wrote:

Just like in The Divine Comedy. That is how Dante ascends into heaven!
Moon - breakers of vows
Mercury - seekers of fame and glory
Venus - intemperate lovers
Sun - wise intellectuals
Mars - heroes and martyrs
Jupiter - just rulers
Saturn - the contemplatives

Sorry, about that. I'm a bit of a literature and history buff

Hi Bogdan,

Nice quote. Where exactly is that in the work? These ideas of souls journeying through the planetary spheres before birth or or at death are very ancient. Interesting to see it continuing into the middle ages.

Speaking of which Mark, do the signs and planetary rulerships change at all in the southern hemisphere? That's something that seems rather worth knowing.

Like nearly all tropicalists I dont reverse the planetary dignities for the southern hemisphere. Its certainly not because I haven't considered the issue.

On the thread on the General forum I gave the link to I showed various southern hemisphere nativities. I think its pretty clear reversal just doesn't work.

While I take my zodiacal boundaries from the equinoxes and solstices (as Aratus 3rd century BCE did) I think trying to use the local climatic analogy too far is a mistake. Ptolemy uses such arguments but they do seem somewhat misleading. The logic of the domicile rulerships doesn't seem to require such arguments.

You could argue the whole astrological tradition is northern hemisphere biased. The Babylonians saw Jupiter in exaltation in Cancer ( the constellation where the Sun reached its highest northerly declination) North is generally 'good' and south less favourable. Its not just the nodes. Planets in latitude above the ecliptic are generaly seen as more favourable than those below it. Its hard to think astrology would have developed such traditions if it was southern hemisphere located.

Mark

Mark wrote:

Hi Bogdan,

Nice quote. Where exactly is that in the work? These ideas of souls journeying through the planetary spheres before birth or or at death are very ancient. Interesting to see it continuing into the middle ages.

It's from Paradisio, the final book of the Divine Comedy. After cleansing himself of sin in Purgatorio, Dante ascends into all the spheres of heaven. It is based on comsological views at the time. They cover the seven traditional planets, the fixed stars, the primum mobile (first sphere sent into motion by God), and the Emperium (the throne of God that exists beyond the universe).

Mark wrote:
Like nearly all tropicalists I dont reverse the planetary dignities for the southern hemisphere. Its certainly not because I haven't considered the issue.

On the thread on the General forum I gave the link to I showed various southern hemisphere nativities. I think its pretty clear reversal just doesn't work.

While I take my zodiacal boundaries from the equinoxes and solstices (as Aratus 3rd century BCE did) I think trying to use the local climatic analogy too far is a mistake. Ptolemy uses such arguments but they do seem somewhat misleading. The logic of the domicile rulerships doesn't seem to require such arguments.

You could argue the whole astrological tradition is northern hemisphere biased. The Baylonians saw Jupiter in exaltation in Cancer ( the constellation where the Sun reached its highest northerly declination) North is generally 'good' and south less favourable. Its not just the nodes. Planets in latitude above the ecliptic are generaly seen as more favourable than those below it. Its hard to think astrology would have developed such traditions if it was southern hemisphere located.

Mark

I agree largely with your views on this Mark,

The only issue I have is when tropicalists use climatic references in the case of the Sun to boost the argument for its rulership, exaltation, detriment and fall and justifying it by the strength of the Sun's rays.

Mark wrote:While I take my zodiacal boundaries from the equinoxes and solstices (as Aratus 3rd century BCE did) I think trying to use the local climatic analogy too far is a mistake. Ptolemy uses such arguments but they do seem somewhat misleading. The logic of the domicile rulerships doesn't seem to require such arguments.

I absolutely agree with this last sentence. But if local climatic analogies are misleading (and again, I whole-heartedly agree), then why define the zodiacal boundaries from the equinoxes and solstices in the first place? I don't mean to sound confrontational; I really want to know if there is some other, non-climatic rationale for using tropical definitions. The ancient sources that do use them, including Aratus, all seem to focus a great deal on the weather/climate.

Martin Gansten wrote:

I absolutely agree with this last sentence. But if local climatic analogies are misleading (and again, I whole-heartedly agree), then why define the zodiacal boundaries from the equinoxes and solstices in the first place? I don't mean to sound confrontational; I really want to know if there is some other, non-climatic rationale for using tropical definitions. The ancient sources that do use them, including Aratus, all seem to focus a great deal on the weather/climate.

I had a feeling this kind of argument was coming my way at some point. Its fair enough. This is the sidereal forum after all!

I suppose it could be argued I want to have my cake and eat it here. In other words use the tropical, seasonal, parametres for the zodiac yet take a different tack on domicile rulerships.

Let me be clear I dont think major seasonal shifts like the equinoxes or solstices are irelevant. As someone working with the tropical zodiac it would be very weird if I did. On a planetary basis these mark a major distinct change for all life on earth. Just about every civilisation in human history has given major attention to these shifts.

Cyril Fagan used to argue that the Greek zodiac was always 'tropical' and I think he was right. No scholar has subsequently contradicted his view. We can argue about the nomenclature. However, they did not have a fiducial star. They calculated the start of the zodiac as a default of 0, 8 or 10 degrees from the vernal point. The beginning of the zodiac was therefore calculated based on the VP. They seem to have believed the vernal point was fixed in space and permanently located at one of these degrees within Aries. However, there was clearly confusion where the VP was and no coherent understanding of precession. When they did perceive the VP moving it was often based on trepidation theory rather than the take of Hipparchus/Ptolemy.

Martin Gansten wrote:

I really want to know if there is some other, non-climatic rationale for using tropical definitions.

Its really an issue of perpective on what significance we give the solstices and equinoxes. I draw a distinction between the major seasonal shifts across the entire planet (equinoxes & solstices) and localised weather/climatic factors. Overall these are astronomically key points in the Earth's annual orbit of the Sun. So its not just about climate/weather as you keep suggesting but fundamentally the astronomical relationship between our planet and the Sun. To me that is a very clear, valid basis to begin a zodiac.

Plus I dont see why we need to put all our eggs in one basket. Just because I use a tropically calculated zodiac doesn't mean I need to become a monomaniac and seek to impose a seasonal interpretation on every astrological concept.

Martin Gansten wrote:

The ancient sources that do use them, including Aratus, all seem to focus a great deal on the weather/climate.

I fully concede some ancient sources do use local climatic or northern hemisphere analogies to support their astrological thinking. Ptolemy is a good example. Similarly, quite a few modern tropical astrologers do this too. In the context of modern 21st century understanding I think that position is a mistake for those upholding the tropical zodiac.

Stepping back from the prejudices of a northern hemisphere perspective these shifts present a clear unambiguous way of measuring the beginning the zodiac across the whole planet. Hence you dont find tropicalists debating where our zodiac starts in the way sidereal ayanamsa are disputed.

The frequent references to the importance of the key seasonal shifts in ancient sources is a challenge for siderealists too. Modern siderealism discounts such references as irrelevant today. However, that seems at odds with the mind set of many of the older sources from which we derive our astrological tradition. Even if someone rejects the tropical zodiac I dont think they should automatically rule out the significance of the equinoxes and solstices in a sidereal sign. It was clearly, something the ancients gave attention to.

Ultimately, though I am not an absolutist about this. I find the logic of the tropical zodiac compelling and it seems to very work well in the charts I have worked with. However, I am open to the possibility that other astrologers more in tune to the logic of a sidereal zodiac could derive equally good results in that way. My take on astrology is essentially a divinatory one.

Mark