Ouranos:
That makes perfect sense, I'll add it to my horary analysis guidelines.

Martin:
The Wikipedia reference (if I caught what you mean) is from Mesopotamian star lore.
If we'll add Mesopotamian, Chinese and Mayan star lore, the signs on the ecliptic would look much different, I believe.

Dima Gur wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 8:28 pm The Wikipedia reference (if I caught what you mean) is from Mesopotamian star lore.
If we'll add Mesopotamian, Chinese and Mayan star lore, the signs on the ecliptic would look much different, I believe.

The zodiac is Mesopotamian! Chinese and Mayan ideas are nothing to do with horoscopic astrology, but the ecliptic, the twelve-sign zodiac, the terms, the triplicities, the dodecatemories, the natures and significations of the seven planets, etc., were all defined by the Babylonians (and later adopted, added to and modified in Hellenistic Egypt). If you want to understand the actual historical reasons behind the classifications of signs found in Greek-language texts, you need to consider their origins.

Might have a point there, Martin.
The Greek Zodiac was adapted from the Mesopotamian one, and other important elements in Western Astrology.
Will have to add it to my to do list; research-reading objectives.

Martin Gansten wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:55 am I forgot to say that Pisces is a case in point: it was originally either two birds or a fish and a bird; I forget which and am travelling at the moment, with limited ability to check.

This discussion here and the category of the "winged" signs came back to me in an unexpected way yesterday while I was driving lonely mountain roads listening to a dharma talk after making a delivery of lumber to one of our contractor's job sites for work. The talk was titled "Life is a Bird, Life is a Fish" and was a discussion around Genjōkōan, an essay written by Dōgen in 1233. The gist of it was basically: life is an endless inquiry; as humans we desire to KNOW, mostly fear the unknown, but no matter how much we try to dispel mystery, its vastness always remains etc. etc. (I won't get all philosophical here, as I'm sure you all have thought on this before). It made perfect sense to me, then, to think of Gemini, Virgo, and Pisces in relation to this category of "winged" signs - and the idea, at least on a grand scale, of the endless inquiry that, as humans, we all undertake.

But who knows? Driving on different roads today, I might hear something that leads me in a whole other direction. So, please take these thoughts lightly.

Astrojin:
Read and reread your reply.
Quite interesting.

Several thoughts:
1. The definition of dominant vs subdominant vs subordinate signs.
Where it is from?
Wasn't able to find it in Demetra George's summary, neither have I noticed it in other sources.
Also, how did you reach the conclusion that ancient sources had the trigon lords in mind when deciding which signs were which?

2. In terms of the Solastial signs (Can and Cap) and the Equinoctial signs (Ari and Lib).
Deb in her zodiac signs descriptions considers the Equinoctial to be about 'bringing balance and equality to things', which may contrast with their cardinal (turning of the page like) quality.
Any opinions about that?

3. About signs without an exalted ruler being pliant to human rulership. That's interesting, first time I've heard of it.
That leaves us three of the fixed signs (all except Taurus), and maybe Sag and Gem if you don't consider the exaltation of the nodes. Would you?
Maybe it just shows that most signs which are without an exalted ruler are 'fixed in their ways', doing things only according to their single planetary ruler.
Although it does makes sense, as exaltation is about adoration of something/someone, or putting him/her/it on the pedestal, so to speak.
So signs without an exalted ruler don't look up to nobody (but themselves).
Taurus may be an exception as it's one of the first signs, what in modern astrology be "personal signs". Thus, it may be more simple and less conceited.

4. Let the chart speak - I have a love hate relationship with that mantra.
On the one side it's true, and is often the case.
On the other side it flattens any astrological discussion into a standtill.

Best
D.

Astrojin:
Read and reread your reply.
Quite interesting.

Hello, yet again.

1. The definition of dominant vs subdominant vs subordinate signs.
Where it is from?
Wasn't able to find it in Demetra George's summary, neither have I noticed it in other sources.

The meanings come from (sort of) different sources.

In terms of rank of fame, Ptolemy looks into the signs of the luminaries (in terms of masculine/feminine), angularities of luminaries and attendants to the luminaries (doryphories/spearbearers). A very high rank of fame is prognosticated if both luminaries are in masculine signs, angular and attended by a doryphory composed of the five planets (while they themselves are also angular). An "obscure" nativity is indicated if the luminaries are neither in masculine signs nor angular nor attended by a benefic. In any case, luminaries in masculine signs (read Fire and Air signs) contribute to "power".

On another note:
When determining the universal meanings (emphasis - universal) of a planet, the Chaldean order naturally is the reference namely, the "superior" planets are those that are superior in the Chaldean order (Sun and above) and the "inferior" planets are those inferior in the Chaldean order (planets below sun).

By analogy, when determining the universal meanings of a sign, the elemental order naturally comes to mind namely, Fire then air then water then earth. Now, we have a different order from amongst the masculine signs i.e. Fire being above Air.
Fire is the highest elemental order before we come to the lowest planetary order which is the sphere of the moon. In terms of "power" analogy, a planet in a fire sign is in its "highest" position by sign translated into a native having some form of authority. But this is universal and not particular. We need to ensure that the chart is locally determined in indicating authority in the world e.g. when the said planet in fire sign is also angular.
Earth is the lowest elemental order. In terms of "power" analogy, a planet in an earth sign is in its "lowest" position by sign translated into a native not having power but it doesn't mean that the native has no "authority" at all. The native may simply is disinterested in authority via power (read also leadership). Now, if the said planet is also angular, this indicates authority on "Earth" meaning he has "power" over assets.

We can see how the above analysis results in Masculine-Fire signs = dominant, Masculine-Air signs = subdominant, Feminine signs = subordinate. But this is also made explicit in the following text:
The anonymous chapter: Thirty-two categories of the zodiacal signs" ff. 94v–95v of ms Florence, BML, Plut. 28. 34 (L), between an incomplete version of “Rhetorius’s” Explanations and a selection from Theophilus’s untitled work on general, natal, and inceptional astrology (translated by Levente László and is available in his Patreon Horoi project. Levente is a member here as well).

Also, how did you reach the conclusion that ancient sources had the trigon lords in mind when deciding which signs were which?

Well, Dorotheus uses trigon lords of the main luminary to indicate "good fortune and assets (I.26 - Benjamin Dykes trans) or "...matter of fortune and property" (I.24 - David Pingree's trans)...

2. In terms of the Solstitial signs (Can and Cap) and the Equinoctial signs (Ari and Lib).
Deb in her zodiac signs descriptions considers the Equinoctial to be about 'bringing balance and equality to things', which may contrast with their cardinal (turning of the page like) quality.
Any opinions about that?

Cardinal signs are divided into two namely solstitial (Can and Cap) and equinoctial (Ari and Lib). When I use the term "turning" signs, I am referring to the solstitial signs only (Can and Cap). The cardinal-solstitial signs (Can and Cap) are called "turning" because the Sun "turns" from increasing to decreasing declination (Can) while being "still" at 0 Can and from decreasing to increasing declination (Cao) while being "still" at 0 Cap. The cardinal-equinoctial signs (Ari and Lib) are not turning; their declinations continue to increase (Ari) or decrease (Lib). Ari being the increasing declination nodal point (intersection of ecliptic and celestial equator) is given the first sign and Lib being the decreasing declination nodal point (intersection of ecliptic and celestial equator) is given the equilibrium sign as it is halfway of the ecliptic. The analogy is even seen in locally determined circle. Ascendant being the first nodal point (intersection of ecliptic and horizon) denotes birth while descendant which is halfway through on the other side of the nodal point (intersection of ecliptic and horizon) denotes "equals" to the native namely spouse and partners (agreeing equals) and contentions (disagreeing equals).

3. About signs without an exalted ruler being pliant to human rulership. That's interesting, first time I've heard of it.
That leaves us three of the fixed signs (all except Taurus), and maybe Sag and Gem if you don't consider the exaltation of the nodes. Would you?

No, I do not consider nodes' exaltations.

Maybe it just shows that most signs which are without an exalted ruler are 'fixed in their ways', doing things only according to their single planetary ruler.

I would definitely include this in the many meanings of signs with no exalted rulers. The many meanings are not all applicable in a chart as the meanings are contextualized to the areas of life.

Although it does makes sense, as exaltation is about adoration of something/someone, or putting him/her/it on the pedestal, so to speak.
So signs without an exalted ruler don't look up to nobody (but themselves).

I would rather place Mercury as the only sign that looks up to nobody but himself and actually exalts himself because Mercury is the only planet that is a domicile and exalted ruler of one sign. Mercury is the potential pride ("devil's favorite sin") of one's chart and the evil spirit (he is also the ruler of the 12th of thema mundi). It is said in the ...(was it Persian or related - I cannot recall!) that the luminaries (Sun representing Adam and Moon representing Eve) were in their exalted position (Sun in Ari and Moon in Tau) while Mercury was in its misery (in Pis). When the "Fall" happen, the luminaries were in the signs of their "Fall" (Sun in Lib and Moon in Sco) while Mercury was in its exalted (in Vir)...

4. Let the chart speak - I have a love hate relationship with that mantra.
On the one side it's true, and is often the case.
On the other side it flattens any astrological discussion into a standtill.

I totally agree. We should do this sparingly. We only do this if the chart wants to speak. If not, we default to the standard way of chart interpretation...
Example: Horary on missing cat...
Cat = ruler of 6th and also Moon (being animated stray being). But there are times when only one of these is the significant significator (pun totally intended). If contradictory outcomes are observed from both 6th ruler and Moon but Moon is in Leo, I would favor Moon because the chart is screaming... pick Moon! (Leo, cat)...this is where we would want to "divine" using "Let the chart speaks..." otherwise we simply resort to standard "on the shelf" interpretation....

All the best
D.

Same to you...
A.