Re: W J Tucker - Astrological Theories
Posted: Thu Dec 19, 2024 4:32 pm
Thanks Ouranus and Atlantean.
Tucker is a most interesting astrologer. His recognition of the Zenith/Nadir polarity is an important one, and one that is often overlooked by astrologers. Tucker's house system isn't based on a division of the horizon as such, but equal divisions of the ecliptic running through the poles of the ecliptic. This gives twelve equal divisions of the celestial sphere.
Tucker recognised that the 10th house cusp based on this division of the sphere runs through the zenith and that the fourth house cusp runs through the nadir. He gives this great importance in his 'Zenith System of House Division'. Based on my understanding of what he is describing, it seems suspiciously like the house system most astrologers know as the Equal House System. He doesn't describe the nonagesimal (the midpoint of the ecliptic between the ascendant and descendant) which most astrologers associate with the tenth house cusp in the EHS.
I think I mentioned in one of the previous posts he shares a lot with other 'back to Ptolemy' astrologers and he wrote an interesting commentary on the Tetrabiblos. Given that this book would have likely been the only classical text available to him, it's not unreasonable for him to have claimed the authority of Ptolemy on many points.
I'm sceptical about the 'scientific' claims he makes, and in many ways he seems all of a piece with other astrologers who have looked back to Ptolemy to justify a scientifically-based astrology. Nevertheless he's an interesting writer who seems to exist quite apart from the mainstream of English astrology in his time.
Tucker is a most interesting astrologer. His recognition of the Zenith/Nadir polarity is an important one, and one that is often overlooked by astrologers. Tucker's house system isn't based on a division of the horizon as such, but equal divisions of the ecliptic running through the poles of the ecliptic. This gives twelve equal divisions of the celestial sphere.
Tucker recognised that the 10th house cusp based on this division of the sphere runs through the zenith and that the fourth house cusp runs through the nadir. He gives this great importance in his 'Zenith System of House Division'. Based on my understanding of what he is describing, it seems suspiciously like the house system most astrologers know as the Equal House System. He doesn't describe the nonagesimal (the midpoint of the ecliptic between the ascendant and descendant) which most astrologers associate with the tenth house cusp in the EHS.
I think I mentioned in one of the previous posts he shares a lot with other 'back to Ptolemy' astrologers and he wrote an interesting commentary on the Tetrabiblos. Given that this book would have likely been the only classical text available to him, it's not unreasonable for him to have claimed the authority of Ptolemy on many points.
I'm sceptical about the 'scientific' claims he makes, and in many ways he seems all of a piece with other astrologers who have looked back to Ptolemy to justify a scientifically-based astrology. Nevertheless he's an interesting writer who seems to exist quite apart from the mainstream of English astrology in his time.