Skyscript Astrology Forum

Therese,
Looks like Jim Eashelman is still active on this SoLunars forum.

http://www.solunars.net


I got this link from the last page of Steve's post(2010).
That thread ran for 15 pages.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

pankajdubey wrote:

Looks like Jim Eashelman is still active on this SoLunars forum. http://www.solunars.net

Yes, every so often I check Jim's forum for new posts. As far as I know Jim's forum is the only "live" venue for Fagan's astrology or the western sidereal system.

I got this link from the last page of Steve's post(2010).
That thread ran for 15 pages.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

If there are serious students who want to learn techniques of the Fagan school, that thread will do it. There's an entire textbook in those posts.

Only I find it a little problematic that Steve generally uses the tropical zodiac while correcting for precession. But this may be the best way for tropical astrologers to become familiar with Fagan's techniques. This western school of sidereal astrology has had very few converts because the system is so mathematically intensive.

Konrad wrote:What do fish have to do with Jupiter, or Saturn with men pouring water?

Jupiter indicates childbearing, engendering, desire, loves... Of the internal parts it rules the sperm, the uterus, the liver, the parts of the right side... - Valens 1.1, Riley

Jupiter signifies procreation according to all Hellenistic astrologers. And not just because it is benefic, but it is a natural signification. The Fishes is a prolific image and the Crab is a prolific image.

Saturn signifies water and ships according to many (if not all) Hellenistic astrologers. The most likely reason for that is that it rules two moist signs - Capricorn (Fish-Goat) and Aquarius (Water-Bearer). Those qualities are clearly derived from the constellations.

Triplicity elements are somewhat rare and even when they are present, such as in Valens, he still keeps Capricorn and Aquarius as aquatic (Book 2.36 and 2.41). And in another place he says:

''Saturn distributing to Jupiter indicates a fine and effective period: men receive inheritances and legacies. They receive help from older people or from wills. They control estates and property. Some gain profit from moist matters: they own ships, they purchase ships, they demolish and /184P/ rebuild, they restore old matters and are adorned with a livelihood''. - http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vet ... entire.pdf

And Ptolemy says:

For when the planets which govern the Lot of Fortune are in power, they make the subjects rich, particularly when they chance to have the proper testimony3 of the luminaries; thus Saturn brings riches through building, or agriculture, or shipping ventures.., - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... /home.html

He also says that if Mars predominates action with the testimony of Saturn it makes ''seamen, drawers of water, tunnelers, painters, gamekeepers, cooks, embalmers'' - 4.4., Robbins translation.

I hope you have examined the tradition thoroughly to think that Pisces is a fixed sign. As far as I remember, the constellation is clearly made of two bodies/fishes, same as Gemini (Twins), Virgo (Virgin with wings) and Sagittarius (Centaur). The Hellenistic astrologers called the mutable signs - double-bodied, clearly there was some other rationale than season going on (and maybe why Ptolemy does not have quadruplicities, but four unequal groupings).

Also, maybe you miss some intuition to figure out why fishes are connected with fertility. They look like something and swim through moist something. This is most likely the reason Jupiter signifies the sperm and the uterus.

Can anyone argue that early Northern Hemisphere March in some way embodies those characteristics better than the Fishes do?

Petosiris,

Those posts of 2014 were made by myself during a time of experimentation, and I no longer adhere to their contents. I am happy to place the sun as ruler of Leo and use the scheme as outlined by Porphyry (or whoever wrote what is claimed to be his work) in chapter five of the Introduction to the Tetrabiblos. Ultimately, I was looking to integrate both measurements into one system, though I concede I went too far towards one side in doing so. If there is any value in using the rising times of the signs to predict the when of the events, then the tropical measurement is more appealing than the unequal nature of the sidereal segments, but that is about as far as it goes for me with it these days.

As for the rest of your post, it isn't really surprising that Saturn and Jupiter have had some of the signfications and qualities of their domiciles integrated into their own set of significations, but that doesn't really answer the question from 2014 that you quoted. As I said, following Porphyry, I think the domicile scheme began with the luminaries being assigned to Leo and Cancer, and the rest of the planets were assigned according to the aspects from each of those signs. For me, the mystery is why Leo and Cancer in the first place? For what it is worth, I don't think Ptolemy gives a satisfactory answer to that question, so this is something that a tropical astrologer must also figure out.

Konrad wrote:Petosiris,

Those posts of 2014 were made by myself during a time of experimentation, and I no longer adhere to their contents. I am happy to place the sun as ruler of Leo and use the scheme as outlined by Porphyry (or whoever wrote what is claimed to be his work) in chapter five of the Introduction to the Tetrabiblos. Ultimately, I was looking to integrate both measurements into one system, though I concede I went too far towards one side in doing so. If there is any value in using the rising times of the signs to predict the when of the events, then the tropical measurement is more appealing than the unequal nature of the sidereal segments, but that is about as far as it goes for me with it these days.

As for the rest of your post, it isn't really surprising that Saturn and Jupiter have had some of the signfications and qualities of their domiciles integrated into their own set of significations, but that doesn't really answer the question from 2014 that you quoted. As I said, following Porphyry, I think the domicile scheme began with the luminaries being assigned to Leo and Cancer, and the rest of the planets were assigned according to the aspects from each of those signs. For me, the mystery is why Leo and Cancer in the first place? For what it is worth, I don't think Ptolemy gives a satisfactory answer to that question, so this is something that a tropical astrologer must also figure out.

Ok, no problem, just pointing a natural signification that could have been made only in a sidereal zodiac. I understand that I do not answer your question, but there is no answer to your question - as signs and planets derived their significations from each other very early on in the Hellenistic tradition. Unless you invent a new astrology, you can't separate them.

So as of now, you use a sidereal zodiac with tropical rising times? The only technique that involves direct summing up of rising times I can think of is the technique by Valens he uses from Nechepso and Petosiris. Is that what you are using? I imagine you use the tropical rising time of Aries as the ''rising time'' of sidereal Pisces then?

You probably have considered that the so-called ''tropical'' rising times have almost no difference from the sidereal rising times in the Aries 10 table, but that there are clear differences today.

petosiris wrote:

Konrad wrote:Petosiris,

Those posts of 2014 were made by myself during a time of experimentation, and I no longer adhere to their contents. I am happy to place the sun as ruler of Leo and use the scheme as outlined by Porphyry (or whoever wrote what is claimed to be his work) in chapter five of the Introduction to the Tetrabiblos. Ultimately, I was looking to integrate both measurements into one system, though I concede I went too far towards one side in doing so. If there is any value in using the rising times of the signs to predict the when of the events, then the tropical measurement is more appealing than the unequal nature of the sidereal segments, but that is about as far as it goes for me with it these days.

As for the rest of your post, it isn't really surprising that Saturn and Jupiter have had some of the signfications and qualities of their domiciles integrated into their own set of significations, but that doesn't really answer the question from 2014 that you quoted. As I said, following Porphyry, I think the domicile scheme began with the luminaries being assigned to Leo and Cancer, and the rest of the planets were assigned according to the aspects from each of those signs. For me, the mystery is why Leo and Cancer in the first place? For what it is worth, I don't think Ptolemy gives a satisfactory answer to that question, so this is something that a tropical astrologer must also figure out.

Ok, no problem, just pointing a natural signification that could have been made only in a sidereal zodiac. I understand that I do not answer your question, but there is no answer to your question - as signs and planets derived their significations from each other very early on in the Hellenistic tradition. Unless you invent a new astrology, you can't separate them.

So as of now, you use a sidereal zodiac with tropical rising times? The only technique that involves direct summing up of rising times I can think of is the technique by Valens he uses from Nechepso and Petosiris. Is that what you are using? I imagine you use the tropical rising time of Aries as the ''rising time'' of sidereal Pisces then?

You probably have considered that the so-called ''tropical'' rising times have almost no difference from the sidereal rising times in the Aries 10 table, but that there are clear differences today.

Petosiris,

No, I don't use the rising times for anything. What I meant was that if I were to, I would use the tropical simply because I like the symmetry. There are quite a few techniques that Valens uses which rely on the rising times, but I don't like the convoluted nature of the them. I really only direct the Hyleg, and the Asc and MC, through the bounds and combine that with the solar revolution and the profected ASC a la Abu Ma'shar.

There are quite a few techniques that Valens uses which rely on the rising times, but I don't like the convoluted nature of the them.

Except for two chronocrators by ascension at the same time, they are not dependant on having equal rising times in my opinion.

Valens uses equinox Aries 8 of system B while using rising times of Aries 10 System A. Either he was making an abstraction like you propose, or he had no idea what is the difference between the two. The difference between sidereal and tropical rising times is unnoticeable at the time, especially if you do not understand precession.

Francesca Rochberg in the Path of the Moon even shows a third school of Babylonians that divided Capricorn - Gemini into fast rising signs of 20 and Cancer - Sagittarius into slow rising signs of 40.

She says that ''Rising times (anaphora) relate to the problem of the variation of daylight length. In early Babylonian astronomy this was perceived as a calendaric matter, but later, in the Hellenistic period, daylight length was treated as an astronomical matter, i.e., as a function of the sun’s position in the zodiac.''

She then quotes Neugebauer - ''On the other hand one ???nds the unaltered set of Babylonian rising times of System A in Indian astronomy of the sixth century A.D. without any consideration for India’s far more southern position.'' - Rochberg, F. (2010). In the path of the moon: Babylonian celestial divination and its legacy (Vol. 6). Brill.

I think the application was meant to be related to the rising time, not the daylight. This in no way supports the ''invariance of the tropical zodiac'', as it was done approximately or accidentally in a sidereal zodiac. - http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01hand.html

It is obvious that he meant the whole Aries rises in 20, not that 20 degrees of Aries and 10 degrees of Taurus rise in 20 (as it is proposed in the article). It is a mistake that needs to corrected in a sidereal framework, but as I said I do not see how Valens could have known the exact rising times of the signs until the application of trigonometry and latitude by Ptolemy.

For example in the length of life which uses rising times, the ''inaccurate'' rising times with klimas instead of latitude would give accurate lengths +- 5 years. I do not think it made them record wrong observations with regards to releasing. Or for the rectification of the ascendant. Or for finding the ascendant, it will give approximate results.

I do think however, that it is problematic with Valens usage of it with planetary years, as that seems predicated on being the exact year of the native.

One can see similar approximations and idealizations with sidereal antiscia of Aries 8, 10 in Manilius and Thrasyllus (and in Ptolemy and Rhetorius erroneously) which are completely accurate only with an Aries 15 zodiac. The tropical is not even good in idealization as tropical Aries is equinoctial as much as tropical Pisces is, because it uses an interstice instead of placing its tropic somewhere between the sign, the 15th degree being ideal. This led to a complete changeover of antiscia signs from signs in sextile and trines to signs in aversion or squares (while according to Thrasyllus and Hephaistio equinoctial Aries and Libra do not hear each other, most likely because they are in opposition).

As Rochberg points out, the rising times were used as daylight pattern, so this may have complemented the antiscia as counter-antiscia (although it would involve signs in aversion or squares).

Mark wrote :

I would be genuinely interested in hearing the views of siderealists how they think domicile rulerships were originally conceived?

I do have a hypothesis, and I think the origin is primarily tropical. I think it requires an acceptance that there was probably an oral tradition preceding (by quite a long way) the earliest surviving documents about astrology, and perhaps also requires that we envisage astrology as an art/science that has been discovered and rediscovered, rather than invented. These ideas are related to things I posted in an earlier discussion (Origins of the tropical zodiac, in the Philo/Science forum). I suggested, following Cyril Fagan, that it would be more logical in terms of the symmetrical rulership scheme for the tropical cross (solstice/equinox axes, and hence antiscia/contrantiscia) to be lined up with that symmetry (solstices between Cancer/Leo and Capricorn/Aquarius, and the 30° following the sun's spring equinox point to be ruled by Venus and called "0° Taurus" -- or indeed, called whatever you want, but ruled by Venus).
I caused a lot of confusion by not being clear enough, but the apparent anomaly seems to have been noted by others. In a recent post about Astrology and praying (philo/science forum), Paul wrote :

the solstice is the 21 June, and so if we were to link this to light, we should really have Gemini as ruled by the Moon, and Cancer by the Sun, so as to better reflect the order of the planets along the solstice axes. We don't do that.

I'd like to quote the tropicalist David Roell (A New Theory of Astrology, in Skeet Shooting for Astrologers)

Signs are not measured from the Sun's longitude, which is how they are usually expressed, but from the Sun's declination. This was how you can still measure it today. Every morning at sunrise, mark the sun's first appearance on the horizon. From the Winter Solstice to the Summer Solstice, you will see it move, day by day, to the left (north). From the Summer Solstice to the Winter Solstice, it will move steadily to the right (south). This lateral distance on the horizon is trisected (in time) to form signs. Long ago it was projected against a backdrop of stars merely as a convenience. The twelve signs of the zodiac have no relation to the background of stars whatever.

The article here on Skyscript by Robin Heath, The Astronomy and Astrology of the Solar Hero, develops the same idea very successfully. This may be what happened at Stonehenge, for example, and probably in the deserts of Egypt and Babylon, where landmarks were few. But before (or as well as) projecting those positions onto the stars (probably the stars rising at sunset, the start of the Semitic day) and perhaps making imaginative connections with events in the agricultural cycle or the weather at that time of year, the horizon-watchers may well have ascribed these space/time slices to various planetary deities. If so, it would be logical to put the Sun at the "top" and Saturn at the "bottom", to associate the Moon with the Sun as the other sect light, and to arrange the other four planets according to their distance and speed of movement from the Sun (or their speed of movement from the Moon). This gives the symmetrical mirror-image rulership scheme.
This then may have rapidly become more associated with the stars, and disconnected from the horizon, so that it "went sidereal", and astrologers may have found that this worked to their satisfaction for predictive or ritual purposes. Then Ptolemy "brought it down" again once the tropical cross had shifted the VP to early Aries, and found that revised scheme useful for predicting meteorological events, for example. So he (re-)established the tropical cross, but skewed with respect to the rulership scheme. (Though he, or perhaps a copyist, forgets to skew it in the chapter of the Houses of the Planets, and lines up the solstice with the rulership scheme rather than with the Gemini/Cancer cusp:"...of the twelve signs the most northern, which are closer than the others to our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and of warmth are Cancer and Leo".)
As Mark pointed out, Gavin White's article here on Skyscript suggests a tropical origin for the exaltations, following the solstice/equinox cross – but with Mars conventionally at the end of Capricorn, Saturn near the end of Libra, and in Indian astrology (possibly borrowing from an earlier Hellenistic tradition) with the Sun at 20° Aries. And according to White, in a text c. 600 BC:

'Jupiter behind the Crab (Cancer) in front of the Lion (Leo)'

So aligning more or less with the earlier sidereal placements of the tropical cross.
As with the rulers, I would suggest that these points were then used sidereally and found to "work" that way. I do believe there is a logic to the sidereal zodiac in terms of galactic structure, which these probably tropical signposts, established when the VP was around 0° Taurus, fortuitously pointed to. But I don't think it would be useful to try to develop that here.
Thanks for your attention.
Graham

Signs are not measured from the Sun's longitude, which is how they are usually expressed, but from the Sun's declination. This was how you can still measure it today. Every morning at sunrise, mark the sun's first appearance on the horizon. From the Winter Solstice to the Summer Solstice, you will see it move, day by day, to the left (north). From the Summer Solstice to the Winter Solstice, it will move steadily to the right (south). This lateral distance on the horizon is trisected (in time) to form signs. Long ago it was projected against a backdrop of stars merely as a convenience. The twelve signs of the zodiac have no relation to the background of stars whatever.

If that was true, they would not have used the constellations as sidereal signs and noted the equinox at the 15th, 10th or 8th degree of the sidereal signs. The Babylonian and Hellenistic astrologers were deliberate sidereal astrologers. They could have just used the tropical values substracting 8 degrees from their tables, but they did not (in fact we have the opposite happening - Valens adds 7 degrees to the tables of Hipparchus - they confusingly did not make a difference between the tropical and sidereal year, because of unawareness of precession, but in my opinion they did make difference of zodiacs - one is aligned with the constellations of the same names as the images, the other is not).

Graham,
I think the Northern part is a slip by Ptolemy. While the antiscia/daylight symbolism of the tropical zodiac is not satisfactory by time of Ptolemy, I do not think it goes back to Taurus equinox, as the 12 sign zodiac did not exist at that time (at least according to academia). The earliest equinox point I could trace is the Aries 15 by Eudoxus and some Alexandrian astrologers. I think that is the time when the exaltations (which I think were more seasonal than sidereal) were developed, and the various degrees were changed for certain schematicism - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10059

Aries 15 spring begins 14 days after Ptolemy's zodiac begins. So what ''Ptolemaic powers'' can be implicit in the signs if that is the case? If the domicile and exaltation scheme is wholly tropical, how can tropical astrologers be sure they are not using them wrongly by 14 degrees off? If I want to use the Hellenistic zodiac I either have to use a sidereal zodiac or a tropical zodiac that begins 7, 9 or 14 degrees earlier from the equinox. It certainly was not the Aries 1 zodiac.

While I agree with you that Taurus is more indicative of moist spring and Scorpio of dry autumn using Ptolemy's planetary properties scheme, I have a better idea - that this is just a coincidence, as was cold Saturn indicating wintry time at the time of Ptolemy, which was chosen more by virtue of planetary order than anything else (as were dry Mars and moist Venus flanking the domiciles with squares with contradictory seasons).

Ptolemy, Paulus and Rhetorius also have another slip by using sextile and trine antiscia, which is redundant with Aries 1. This is more evident of astrologers not being well aware of the implications of tropicalism, siderealism and precession, as they continue to use both well into the Medieval ages.

By talking about the northern and the daylight, you are noting something obvious. The first degree is an arbitrary and non-schematic point, only chosen by the virtue of nearly coinciding with the sidereal signs at the time of Ptolemy, as Aries 8 was discovered to not be the true equinox anymore.

In the Hipparchus-Ptolemaic zodiac, Aries and Libra are no more equinoctial than Pisces and Virgo. Cancer does not have any more daylight than Gemini and Capricorn does not have any less daylight than Sagittarius (or maybe there is an atomic amount of difference). Those distinctions were not created with Aries 1 in mind, but most likely with Aries 15 (although in my opinion they work to some extent, albeit not as symmetrical, with the sidereal zodiacs of Aries 8 and 10 - Manilius and Thrasyllus used them thus, I may add Pisces 5).

The discovery of antipodes should have settled the question by now. Instead we continue to see the seasonal paradigm being used without problem in Iceland, Brazil and Australia. It works just as well as in temperate zones.

Petosiris wrote:

If that was true, they would not have used the constellations as sidereal signs and noted the equinox at the 15th, 10th or 8th degree of the sidereal signs. The Babylonian and Hellenistic astrologers were deliberate sidereal astrologer

Yes of course, I agree. I was trying to suggest an origin for the rulership scheme, not discredit or deny sidereal. I'm suggesting that the tropical origins are earlier, before astrology as such in fact, or perhaps in parallel. A horizon-based solar calendar, which could help to explain how the rulership scheme developed. Once the connection was made with the stars, it was sidereal, and became more precise as to degrees, as you say.

I think the Northern part is a slip by Ptolemy. While the antiscia/daylight symbolism of the tropical zodiac is not satisfactory by time of Ptolemy, I do not think it goes back to Taurus equinox, as the 12 sign zodiac did not exist at that time (at least according to academia).

Yes, I agree it's a slip, but a "Freudian" one (a mistake that reveals the truth). And as you say, there are no documents, but in other fields such as linguistics, when there are no documents, you look at structural features. This is what I'm trying to do. The rulership scheme may reflect a dividing up of what would have been the tropical cross when VP was at 0 Taurus.

While I agree with you that Taurus is more indicative of moist spring and Scorpio of dry autumn using Ptolemy's planetary properties scheme, I have a better idea - that this is just a coincidence

I wasn't actually thinking of moist spring or dry autumn, just of the solstice/equinox axes. And of course everything could just be coincidence, including the rulers and all events that seem to be indicated by astrology!

By talking about the northern and the daylight, you are noting something obvious.

Yes, but I was suggesting that this northern point of maximum daylight "should" logically correspond to the "top" of the rulership scheme, i.e. cusp between the two houses of the lights, and this doesn't seem to be at all obvious to most astrologers.

The first degree is an arbitrary and non-schematic point, only chosen by the virtue of nearly coinciding with the sidereal signs at the time of Ptolemy, as Aries 8 was discovered to not be the true equinox anymore.

Yes, once we're in a sidereal perspective I agree, of course. Sidereally, I don't think there is any reason to consider Aries the "first" sign, and tropically, Taurus would make a better "permanent" first sign by matching the rulership symmetry to the antiscial symmetry of the solstice/equinox cross.

Tropical Aries and Libra are no more equinoctial than Pisces and Virgo. Cancer does not have any more daylight than Gemini and Capricorn does not have any less daylight than Sagittarius (or maybe there is an atomic amount of difference). Those distinctions were not created with Aries 1 in mind, but most likely with Aries 15

Yes, and anyway I am much more convinced by sidereal than tropical. The various decreasing degrees of the VP documented in Aries surely show that astrology was sidereal preceding Ptolemy and took some time to settle into the modern tropical logic of considering the VP to be "frozen" between Pisces and Aries. If they'd opted to put it between Aries and Taurus I think it would have more internal logic, and might thus correspond in the way I suggested to a much earlier time when horizon-rulerships were perhaps taking shape. What I'm really saying is that I think Ptolemy was right when he "slipped", and I was trying to find an explanation of when and how the rulership scheme could have developed in that symmetrical way from solar/horizon observations. The Robin Heath article (The astronomy and astrology of the solar hero myth) seems to me to point in this direction.
Graham

I wasn't actually thinking of moist spring or dry autumn, just of the solstice/equinox axes. And of course everything could just be coincidence, including the rulers and all events that seem to be indicated by astrology!

Right, coincidences by analogy are the source of divination (although Ptolemy was fully naturalist), I am just saying that this kind of analogy is contrary to some other analogies like the constellations (which by the way were thought to influence the weather - 2.11. of Tetrabiblos, also cf. phases of fixed stars book by Ptolemy).

Yes, but I was suggesting that this northern point of maximum daylight "should" logically correspond to the "top" of the rulership scheme, i.e. cusp between the two houses of the lights, and this doesn't seem to be at all obvious to most astrologers.

When you get into Hellenistic astrology you will see they tried to schematise too many things at the same time. For example the antiscia doctrine is contrary to the aspect doctrine, so one (the antiscia) becomes secondary to the other, or at least so it appears to me. People are accustomed to see all kinds of patterns, some astrologers see the ABC system in Hellenistic astrology where it is not. So I am always open to the idea of slips and mere coincidence rather than unconscious Freudian slips and deliberate coincidence. So while Taurus - Scorpio axis makes more sense, it actually did not because of other reasons. Ptolemy notes that you can start everywhere, but he uses the spring analogy that youth is moist like it. I think there was influence from the Babylonians who started their new year from the New Moon after the equinox (which at the time occured in Aries), although the Egyptians (and some astrologers like Valens) did from the rising of Sirius.

Off-topic you would be interested in knowing that April 23 is the feast of saint George and that October 26 is the feast of saint Demetrius and these coincide with Taurus and Scorpio Julian Calendar tropical ingresses in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The superstitious people of Greece and the Balkans believed that the two saints pull the Sun around the sky and they specifically say that George controls the summer and that Demetrius controls the winter. Anthropologically this would fall into the category of divine twins myths, although saint George is already related to the Thracian Horseman myth, and the iconography between the two is the same. George usually rides a white horse, while Demetrius rides a brown horse. This itself (my personal hypothesis) may be a remnant of fertility cults introduced by the Celts related to Epona.

Counter-argument can be that it is the fixed signs of the Aries zodiac that decide the seasons (even though Ptolemy does not make that distinction well enough he does say that the tropical fixed signs makes the weather touch you most firmly).

I myself have noticed that Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo and Libra have no malefic signs with them compared to Scorpio - Aries half - which has 4. So the Taurus - Libra half should be the brighter and solar one, theoretically. I have entertained the possibility of Aries 8 or 15 tropical zodiac, but not of 1 Taurus before. It is quite interesting.

But none of this helps my practice. If I discovered some rationale for the exaltations is tropical, how does this help me if I know it is not applicable to the Southern Hemisphere? Similarly, if the exaltation was proven to be related to paranatellonta or heliacal risings in a sidereal zodiac, how does this help my practice today if I do not live in Babylon or Egypt?

I never understood that part of both camps.

Petosiris wrote

April 23 is the feast of saint George and that October 26 is the feast of saint Demetrius and these coincide with Taurus and Scorpio Julian Calendar tropical ingresses in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The superstitious people of Greece and the Balkans believed that the two saints pull the Sun around the sky and they specifically say that George controls the summer and that Demetrius controls the winter.

This is interesting, though curious they start pulling a month after the equinoxes, rather than straight away!
Reminds me that I found out a while ago that contrary to my belief, traditionally built churches are not aligned due east, but to various points on the local eastern horizon within the range of the Sun's rising in the course of the year. And in principle, this direction should correspond to the date of the Saint's day of that church. So a church of St John the Baptist should be aligned to the summer solstice (or nearly - 24th June, to be precise, in present calender), that of John the Evangelist to the winter solstice (Decmeber 27th, in fact).
So in a sense the St Johns "rule" those bits of the Sun's path as seen on the horizon, as I suggest for planetary rulers.
Graham