Skyscript Astrology Forum

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.

Rod
I absolutely agree. I gave it as a possible reason for the choice of Aries as the exaltaion of the Sun because astrology was developed in the Northern hemisphere, but I would be, let's say, disappointed if that was all there was behind the exaltations.

I don't think seasonal considerations should enter into sidereal astrology (except that the meanings of the pairs of nodes, of which in practice only the Moon's are traditionally used, should theoretically be reversed).

I've always thought that in theory tropicalists should reverse the meanings in the Southern hemisphere, and the fact that most don't seems to me to be major flaw in the reasoning underly tropical astrology. I find arguments about, e.g. the fact that the "greening" of the earth in Spring is more pronounced in the N. Hemisphere unconvincing, as the tropical cycle is primarily about light, not vegetation (there's probably more green in winter than in Summer in the Sahara, anyway). Some say the tropical zodiac works best, in practice, without reversal, others say with, which looks as though we all manage to find what we're looking for.

Graham

Graham F wrote:

I've always thought that in theory tropicalists should reverse the meanings in the Southern hemisphere, and the fact that most don't seems to me to be major flaw in the reasoning underly tropical astrology.

As a northern hemisphere tropicalist myself I hope you dont object to my commenting here in the sidereal forum? I have looked into this subject a lot. Maybe as I was born on Australia day.

First of all it needs to be acknowledged that the domicile rulerships are a comparatively late development. We dont find them in Babylonian astrology at all. While we owe the zodiac to the Babylonians the domicile rulerships seem to have been very much a hellenistic development.

Although Ptolemy sought to rationalise astrology and use seasonal analogies for the domicile rulerships the idea is probably taken too far in his work the Tetrabiblos. The seasonal zodiac shifts ie equinoxes or solstices are still fundamental for tropicalists to calculate the beginning of signs but these occur in both hemispheres simultaneously. The exclusive focus on northern hemisphere climatic issues to explain sign rulership is certainly problematic for tropicalists. Many tropicalists make such naive arguments without considering the implications for southern hemisphere astrology. I know because I used to do this myself!

However, there is a non-seasonal justification for the zodiac rulerships (sidereal or tropical) which is astrological but not seasonal at all.

This relates to the speed or velocity of the planets and their distance from the earth (in ancient thought). This can be seen in the Chaldean order of the planets.

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

We see the Moon as the swiftest planet and closest body to the earth and Saturn as the slowest and furthest away body. The question remains why was the Sun assigned a sign next to Cancer? This seems fairly obvious in terms of the fundamental nature of the lunation cycle to astrology. Maybe there was a hemispheric bias in assigning the Moon to Cancer. Cancer is a sign north of the ecliptic so they probably perceived it made more sense to assign the Moon to it there than in a sign (or constellation) south of the ecliptic. Once the Moon was assigned a domicile everything else fell into place.

So I suppose it could be argued both tropical and sidereal astrology have an inherent northern hemisphere bias in how the domicile rulerships were originally assigned. Sidereal astrology is not completely immune from this criticism.

Siderealists could marshall some additional points though. For example, even in geocentric astrology the Sun was seen as literally the king of planets and the constellation of Leo long had royal association with its alpha star Regulus the 'King Star' of the Babylonians. The latter point obviously doesn't help tropicalists so much to resolve the question!

Once you assign the Moon to Cancer and the Sun to Leo you can see clear aspectual relationships between the signs.

I cannot do better than give the link to Deborah Houlding's article on this:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html

While the southern hemisphere issue appears a theoretical objection to the tropical zodiac I am not aware of any working astrologers who actually think it works better reversed.

Although as an attention grabbing point I guess this could give such an astrologer prominence. In the marketing culture of the 21st century being the only astrologer to use a 13 sign zodiac or a reversed tropical zodiac could get you more attention in the media.

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.

Mark

Thanks Mark
The Chaldean order point is a good argument for the arrangment of the zodiac other than seasonally, I agree. And I also agree that the "top" is, in this scheme, the domain of the moon, and that the Sun has been sort of "fitted in", with the lunation cycle largely justifying this, as you say.
But surely, if we look at the zodiac in that way, we're back to seeing that the division should be between Capricorn and Aquarius (the deepest point of Saturn rulership), and between Cancer and Leo (the highest point of rulership by the lights)? So a tropicalist should surely apportion the first sign following the vernal point to Venus not Mars (as should a siderealist, because the Chaldean argument holds for both). So still, the only justification I can see for the Aries/Cancer/Libra/Capricorn setup (putting the VP at the beginnings of those signs, rather than at their ends as the Chaldean order would imply for the North, at least) is surely seasonal/sidereal/N hemisphere, but 2000 years ago.
Graham

Graham wrote:
Thanks Mark

The Chaldean order point is a good argument for the arrangment of the zodiac other than seasonally, I agree. And I also agree that the "top" is, in this scheme, the domain of the moon, and that the Sun has been sort of "fitted in", with the lunation cycle largely justifying this, as you say.

Thats my best guess just now yes.

But surely, if we look at the zodiac in that way, we're back to seeing that the division should be between Capricorn and Aquarius (the deepest point of Saturn rulership), and between Cancer and Leo (the highest point of rulership by the lights)? So a tropicalist should call the first sign following the vernal point Taurus, not Aries (as should a siderealist, because the Chaldean argument holds for both. So still, the only justification I can see for the Aries/Cancer/Libra/Capricorn setup is seasonal/sidereal/N hemisphere, but 2000 years ago.

Well ultimately, its all just symbolism. The solar or tropical zodiac is certainly that. I must have missed something crucial in your argument I think as I dont really follow your point about why tropical Taurus would be the first sign after the vernal point.

As a tropicalist I obviously want to start with a cardinal sign but certainly not Capricorn. Sidereally, I accept it may be quite different. One of things I find a bit odd in modern western siderealism (Fagan school esp) is the constant insistence that the seasons are irrelevant to a sidereal zodiac. My problem with this is not because I am some fanatical tropicalist trying to argue the ancients were all really tropicalists. The concept would have been meaningless to them. However, I repeatedly find references to what seem to be seasonal factors changing how the signs or constellations were viewed in ancient astrology.

I therefore think the nature of sidereal Gemini, Sagittarius, Pisces and Virgo are different today because of the fact the equinoxes and solstices are there. I dont mean in the narrow, climatic sense. But rather in the sense that it gives all these signs more power through their closer association with the natural seasonal rhythms on earth.

But I suppose people will say a tropicalist would say that!

In the case of sidereal Sagittarius we have the additional point in its favour that we now know the galactic centre is located there which coincides the the Mula Nakshatra. Interestingly, the earth is pointing to the galactic centre from the southern hemisphere.

I think the orbital period argument is a good one for retaining the traditional sign rulerships. Its what seems to have motivated ancient thinking. But where do you start the sidereal zodiac today? I think that is really a question better left to siderealists to discuss.

Mark

Mark wrote:Maybe there was a hemispheric bias in assigning the Moon to Cancer. Cancer is a sign north of the ecliptic so they probably perceived it made more sense to assign the Moon to it there than in a sign (or constellation) south of the ecliptic. Once the Moon was assigned a domicile everything else fell into place.

So I suppose it could be argued both tropical and sidereal astrology have an inherent northern hemisphere bias in how the domicile rulerships were originally assigned. Sidereal astrology is not completely immune from this criticism.

You mean, of course, than Cancer is north of the equator, not the ecliptic (as all the signs are on the ecliptic)? But I'm still not sure how you suppose the northern declination of Cancer to have led to its being assigned to the Moon -- could you clarify that bit?

(Personally, I think a symbolic link between the semi-aquatic crab on the one hand and the Moon with its connection to tides, etc, on the other, seems a more likely reason.)

In the case of sidereal Sagittarius we have the additional point in its favour that we now know the galactic centre is located there which coincides the the Dhruva Nakshatra.

I think you mean Mula rather than Dhruva, right? (Dhruva, possibly related to the English words 'true' and 'trow', is the Sanskrit name of the pole star.)

Martin Gansten wrote:

I'm still not sure how you suppose the northern declination of Cancer to have led to its being assigned to the Moon -- could you clarify that bit?

Yes of course I actually meant the celestial equator. Thanks.

Porphyry in his Cave of the Nymphs links living in the northern hemisphere to the signs north of the equator. In particular Cancer. He then goes on to link the proximity of the Moon to us on earth being more appropriate for the pole closest to us (the assumption being nakedly northern hemisphere orientated).

He states:

And since Cancer is nearest to us, it is very properly attributed to the Moon, which is the nearest of all the heavenly bodies to the earth. But as the southern pole by its great distance is invisible to us, hence Capricorn is attributed to Saturn, the highest and most remote of all the planets.

The idea of directionology linked to signs is very ancient. The Babylonians linked the triplicity we assign to the water element today to the direction of north.

Cancer is also the soul gate for the incarnation of men. As the sign of the Sun's greatest elevation, Cancer was considered nearest to the highest point of heaven - thus the constellation was recognised as 'the Gate of Men' through which souls descended to Earth from heaven.

The Moon symbolises the body and physical incarnation. We see this in the World Horoscope known as the Thema Mundi, described by many ancient astrologers, where Cancer is the ASC sign and the Moon is rising in Cancer. In addition, the Lot of Fortune in ancient astrology represented our fated destiny at birth and was known as the lot of the Moon.

Porphyry very directly links this soul gate in Cancer to the solar solsticial cycle. Cancer was of course the sign of the summer solstice then irrespective of zodiac when the ancient astrologers developed the domicile rulerships.

I think the perspective of the ancients framing our tradition was often a good deal more mystical than many secular moderns like to acknowledge. Rather than repeat my comments here I refer you to my numerous posts on the subject of soul gates on the ongoing thread entitled: Number Symbolism and the Sidereal Zodiac

Martin Gansten wrote:

Personally, I think a symbolic link between the semi-aquatic crab on the one hand and the Moon with its connection to tides, etc, on the other, seems a more likely reason.)

I dont see why a lot of factors couldn't work together to support the idea. The Stoic notion of cosmic sympathy linked the tides of the earth to the movements of the Moon millennia before western astronomers and physicists examined the issue.

Martin Gansten wrote:

I think you mean Mula rather than Dhruva, right? (Dhruva, possibly related to the English words 'true' and 'trow', is the Sanskrit name of the pole star.)

Yes. I did mean Mula. I had been reading something on Dhruva and obviously muddled the two when posting. I have altered that bit of the post.

Thanks

Mark

Thanks for the clarification, Mark. I see how Porphyry linked Cancer and the Moon through the concept of 'proximity' (albeit of two very different kinds). Whether the originators of the rulership scheme many centuries earlier thought along the same lines is, of course, an open question. I agree that more than one line of thinking may have been at work. (Does anyone know what colour Mesopotamian crabs were? Whitish?)

Mark wrote:

I must have missed something crucial in your argument I think as I dont really follow your point about why tropical Taurus would be the first sign after the vernal point.

I should better have said "the sign ruled by Venus", rather than Taurus, perhaps (I corrected this almost immediately).

My point (it was Fagan's as well: Therese points out that historical scholarship has superseded some of Fagan's historical arguments, but he was talking about structure and internal logic as well) is that if you've got a symmettrical scheme, like the rulerships as per the Chaldean order as you pointed out, you shouldn't upset the symmetry without knowing why.

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

If we accept, as you suggest, that for good reason, the sun is fitted into one of the moon's places (a sort of positive moon), then this Chaldean order goes from near to far and from fast to slow, with one side a mirror image of the other (as in antiscia/contrantiscia), with one side going "up" to the fastest planet, the other going "down" to the slowest.

Surely the best place to put the mirror (the division between halves of the zodiac) is where we get a symmettrical reflection, i.e. between the two Satrun signs and the two lights signs (vertical axis), and halfway between those two poles for the horizontal axis (i.e. between the Mars and the Venus ruled signs).

It seems to me that your explanation re the Chaldean order simply makes my original point (posted in the thread on number symbolism), but on a more sophisticated level:

The structure of the zodiac would clearly make it start either with Taurus, Leo, Scorpio or Aquarius. Take anyone off the street who knows nothing about astrology except maybe his sun sign and show him a diagram of the zodiac showing only the rulerships. Then ask him where he would put the start of the cycle - I'll bet he'd say one of those four, probably either Aquarius or Taurus, because the symmetry of the structure is clear.

This seems to me to be common sense, all the more so when you add the information about the Chaldean order. Common sense isn't always right, but I think it needs to be acknowledged and considered. Why have a skewiff zodiac? The only reason I can find is that that the VP was near the beginning of sidereal Aries when Western astrology was becoming fully developed, and Ptolemy decided to put it at 0? Aries and "freeze" it, so to speak - but it wasn't there before, and it's not now. The "freezing" (i.e. adoption of a tropical zodiac) seems to me be a perfectly valid thing to do, but not in the place where it just happened more or less to be.
Graham

Graham F wrote

If we accept, as you suggest, that for good reason, the sun is fitted into one of the moon's places (a sort of positive moon), then this Chaldean order goes from near to far and from fast to slow, with one side a mirror image of the other (as in antiscia/contrantiscia), with one side going "up" to the fastest planet, the other going "down" to the slowest.

I used the term 'Chaldean order' for convenience because its quite well known and carries on into renaissance astrology. However, it wasn't strictly accurate. What I really meant was the order of the celestial spheres. After the Earth these start with the Moon and move outwards towards Saturn in the sequence I gave. In particular: Moon-Mercury-Venus-Sun-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn.

Graham F wrote:

Surely the best place to put the mirror (the division between halves of the zodiac) is where we get a symmettrical reflection, i.e. between the two Satrun signs and the two lights signs (vertical axis), and halfway between those two poles for the horizontal axis (i.e. between the Mars and the Venus ruled signs).

But that is exactly what we already have in the traditional domicile rulerships is it not?

Here is the diagram of sign rulerships from Deborah Houlding's article on the topic I gave a link to earlier.
The fact that the Moon was the first celestial sphere after the Earth was I think an important consideration in starting the domicile scheme with the luminaries. The importance the ancients placed on Cancer is seen in that scheme and also by its placement as both the ASC and Moon in the Thema Mundi. I dont think this system was simply about the role of Cancer as the Solsticial sign. The role of the Moon in the philosophy of celestial spheres was also pivotal.

Mark

I wrote:

Surely the best place to put the mirror (the division between halves of the zodiac) is where we get a symmettrical reflection, i.e. between the two Saturn signs and the two lights' signs (vertical axis), and halfway between those two poles for the horizontal axis (i.e. between the Mars and the Venus ruled signs).

Mark wrote:

But that is exactly what we already have in the traditional domicile rulerships is it not?

Exactly!! That is my point! So why not (in tropical astrology) line up your solistices and equinoxes with the pattern? And in sidereal, why "start" the cycle with a sign one third the way up one side?
I guess we'll have to leave it there, I really don't see how to make the point any more clearly (than you've just done!). Never mind!
Graham

Graham F wrote:

Exactly!! That is my point! So why not (in tropical astrology) line up your solistices and equinoxes with the pattern? And in sidereal, why "start" the cycle with a sign one third the way up one side?
I guess we'll have to leave it there, I really don't see how to make the point any more clearly (than you've just done!). Never mind!
Graham

Hello Graham,

I am not trying to exasperate you! I updated my post while you were writing so you might want to see it.

On a tropical/seasonal basis where one chooses to start/end the year/zodiac is a subjective issue. Is it spring, mid summer, autumn or mid-winter? The tradition suggests Aries and I choose to follow that. However, the important principle for me is the idea of cardinality. By the time the Greeks created the domicile rulerships the notion of Aries as the first sign was hundreds of years old. So although the philosophy of sign rulership stems from the luminaries the entire zodiac philosophy is based on an Aries beginning point. Clearly, though, the Greeks gave a lot of thought to an alternative scheme of their own in the Thema Mundi starting with Cancer.

It cannot be denied the two traditions are not an entirely comfortable fit at times

Domicile rulerships are only one kind of traditional dignity since as you know as we have have exaltation, triplicity, bound and decan rulers. The exaltation and bound rulerships appear to be Babylonian in origin so these predate the domicile rulership scheme.

Mark