Graham F wrote: In any case this thread is about the symmetry of the tropical zodiac.
Graham

hi graham,

i came back to this thread after having read it when you initially posted it, but not really understanding very well what you are trying to discuss!

maybe i will say a few things and you can help me understand your intent better.. their really is no tropical zodiac as i understand it. the zodiac is about stars in the sky and the relation of the sun to this backdrop of stars that have been given names based on constellations.

the idea of the tropical zodiac is about the relationship between the sun and earth and basically ignores the perspective of our sun in relation to other stars beyond our sun. these are 2 different systems of referencing astronomical information. the one that i am focused on involves the sun and earth and the planets within this particular solar system.. that the names of a zodiac were given to describe this earth cycle of equinox and solstice points is a confusion in terms that those panning astrology love to bring up. i agree with you and margherita that the information needs to be reversed in the southern hemisphere and i believe this art form was originally northern hemisphere based.

i read deb houldings article that you mentioned thinking i might better understand what you are wanting to explore here.

you mention rulership themes in one of your posts here and what type of symmetry exists on this level with the 'tropical' zodiac. for me the spring equinox shares something with mars, while the fall equinox shares something with venus. i like the symmetry of the summer and winter solstice having a connection to the moon and saturn also. that the sun and saturn are exalted in the opposite equinox points makes sense to me too. this scheme doesn't include mercury or jupiter, or the sun directly but it makes sense to me without the need for a borrowed zodiac sign.. if they had of named these turning points in the earth cycle i would have been happier and i think it would be less confusing. is this the type of symmetry you are wanting to discuss which involve rulership ideas as opposed to tropical sign ideas?

as for john addey and his work with harmonics - some starting point is necessary. i don't believe the tropical zodiac names are considered all that relevant or central to his emphasis on harmonics.. the starting point could just as easily be at any point on the 360 wheel.. ignoring the signs and putting emphasis on the connections made between planets would seem to fit with my understanding of his work better..

Hello James
Thanks for your reply. You say

the spring equinox shares something with mars, while the fall equinox shares something with venus

I thought this might be the answer, at least it was the only one I could think of - but I'd say that if you call the first sign following the equinox "Taurus" and consider it ruled by Venus, then Mars leads UP to the Spring equinox (which would also be at 30? Aries, just as much as at 0 Taurus), and Venus leads up to the Autumn one (at 30? Libra/0 Scorpio). The equinoxes/solstice points are BETWEEN signs, not IN them. Also, if the Summer solstice is at 30 Cancer (0 Leo) then you've got your Moon involved, and the Sun too, and if the Winter solstice is at 30 Capricorn (0 Aquarius), you've got your Saturn - the very heart of Saturn's two rulerships, in fact. And what's more, the eponymous constellations in the sky corresponded to the those tropical points around 2000BC - not so very long ago in the scheme of things.

A primary key to the zodiac is the ancient division of signs into lunar and solar halves. This division has fallen by the wayside in modern times, but it is really very important in understanding how the zodiac as a whole operates. This solar-lunar division of the zodiac is known in both East and West, and is mentioned in several texts, among them India's Yavanajataka of Sphujidhvaja, Manilius, and in Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos:
"...they portioned out these two (Cancer and Leo) as houses to the greatest and most authoritative planets, that is, to the lights, with Leo going to the Sun since it is a masculine z?idion, and Cancer going to the Moon since it is feminine. And accordingly, they laid down that the semicircle from Leo up to Capricorn was solar, while the semicircle from Aquarius to Cancer was lunar, in order that in each of the semicircles one z?idion could be apportioned to each of the five planets appropriately, the one being figured in relation to the Sun, and the other in relation to the Moon..." (Tetrabiblos, Book 1, p. 32, translated by Robert Schmidt)

Compare with this on the antiscia, by Deborah Houlding:

Ptolemy also describes this scheme, where he says that 'signs which behold each other' are also signs of equal power since they are equally removed from the tropics. He explains that they 'behold' one another, partly because they rise and set in the same part of the horizon, and partly because:
"when the Sun comes into either of them the days are equal to the days, the nights to the nights, and the lengths of their own hours are the same". Naturally, since the solstices represent the points on the ecliptic where the Sun reaches maximum declination north (at 0? Cancer) and South (0? Capricorn), its declination is paralleled in the degrees that are equally distant on either side of them (see diagram below).

If you replace "0? Cancer" with "30? Cancer" (or 0? Leo), and "0 Capricorn" wiht "30 Cp/0 Aqu", doesn't this make more sense in the light of the previous quote from Ptolemy ("in order that in each of the semicircles one z?idion could be apportioned to each of the five planets appropriately...")? And wouldn't those diagrams in Houlding article (and elsewhere) showing the symmetry of the tropical zodiac make more sense if, instead of being skewed from the soli-lunar axis described by Ptolemy (axis which represents the "apportioning" of the planets by Moon and Sun, to East and West, left and right) they were rotated 30? so they lined up with that soli-lunar axis? The "bottom" of the year would then be in the depths of Saturn, the "top" of the year between the Sun and the Moon.
Sorry to get "New Agey" now, but you can also think of it as a rising up, a long inbreath from Winter solstice to Summer solstice, and an outbreath from Summer to Winter, or vice versa if you prefer, or simply as a movement from the least light to the most light (http://astronuts.tribe.net/thread/53b38 ... 7720798526):

The zodiac is not just out there, it's in here. All of the planets and all of the signs are within us. We are the solar system. This understanding of planet/chakra correspondances comes from Vedic astrology, but can be used by anyone wanting a direct connection to the planets.

ROOT CHAKRA - SATURN
Inhale: Aquarius
Exhale: Capricorn

SEX CHAKRA - JUPITER
Inhale: Pisces
Exhale: Sagittarius

WILL CHAKRA - MARS
Inhale: Aries
Exhale: Scorpio

HEART CHAKRA - VENUS
Inhale: Taurus
Exhale: Libra

THROAT CHAKRA - MERCURY
Inhale: Gemini
Exhale: Virgo

THIRD EYE CHAKRA - SUN & MOON
Inhale: Cancer
Exhale: Leo

Or on a more sobre note, here's a bit from Robert Hand ("On the Invariance of the Tropical Zodiac", http://cura.free.fr/quinq/01hand.html)

"Only if two points are symmetrical with respect to the equinoxes can they possess this symmetry of arcs in O.A. which in turn produces the symmetrical rising times of signs which are equidistant from the equinoxes. This symmetry can occur in a sidereal zodiac only when the vernal point is at exactly 0 degrees of a sign. The Babylonians of Systems A and B knew this which is why they measured the rising times of 30 degree arcs from the vernal point rather than from 0 degrees of Aries in a zodiac in which the vernal point was not at 0 Aries (or any other sign).
This tells us something very important which seems to have escaped the notice of nearly everyone. The Babylonians of Systems A and B had at least two twelvefold divisions of the ecliptic into 30 degree divisions: One was made from a point which was 10 or 8 degrees prior to the vernal point. This "zodiac" may or may not have been consciously sidereal. The second was a "zodiac" which was measured from the vernal point and which clearly was consciously tropical."

If we're going to give this second, tropical, zodiac (in Hand's hypothesis) a system of rulerships (which by definition, being specifically tropical, would be independent of any particular constellation), why not make those rulerships symmetrical with the solstices and equinoxes, and the rising times? ("Only if two points are symmetrical with respect to the equinoxes can they possess this symmetry of arcs in O.A. which in turn produces the symmetrical rising times of signs which are equidistant from the equinoxes.").
Or Houlding again:

"At some unknown date the philosophy of 'opposite-shadows' or 'reflective-degrees' was incorporated into astrology in the belief that each degree of the zodiac has its own counter degree, mirroring its distance from the solstice axis on the opposite side of the chart."

There are also positive and negative "oppositely ruled" reflective "shadow signs" or "counter signs": Cancer and Leo, Aries and Scorpio, etc. Why not draw the logical and elegant conclusion, i.e. put 2 and 2 together?
Anyway, thanks again for your reply, but I don't know how to put it any differently, so I think I'll just give up now, and stick with the sidereal zodiac, where at least everything, rulerships, rising times and all, line ups properly with the solstices once every 26000 years!
All the best!
Graham

graham,

i have essentially abandoned the tropical zodiac.. sure i use the names of the 12 wedges to describe something to another astrologer based on them knowing i am thinking 'tropical' rather then sidereal, but for all intensive purposes i don't bother with the signs except as a means of making my own symbolism out of it all. i can be accused of being a bit too individualistic but for me there really is no 'zodiac' in the tropical sense.. it is sidereal.. whether it lined up at one point and they got to this based off that i will leave for the historians to decide.

if you throw out the desire to latch something onto a sign it doesn't really matter what sign is on the spring equinox as the spring equinox is the main event, or more generally - the equinox and solstice are the main events in regard to turning points in the earth cycle round the sun..

the day to night ratio is even at the equinox and as far as it can go one way or the other at the solstice points.. these happen to represent the cardinal cross which makes sense to me..

light and darkness. 2 symbols - sun and saturn seem to represent this the best, although perhaps one could say the moon could substitute for the sun during the night on some level. one is hot, and the other cold or at least they have an association with these ideas.. light- warmth, and darkness - cold..

as to your quote from ptolemy on dividing the cycle up from leo to capricorn and then from aquarius to cancer - it is interesting as i was just reading from 'introduction to traditional astrology' benjamin dykes last night and passed page 60 where they discuss this division of solar and lunar signs - the leo to cap being solar while the aquarius to cancer is lunar.. for me this division is much later after a number of other more significant symbolic divisions have been made. it breaks off the solstice line that is essential for someone focused on the earth/sun relationship as a primary division of the earth sun cycle.

it makes sense from the point of view of both the sun and moon given rulership over the most of summer when life and light is in full bloom in the northern hemisphere.. masculine and feminine ideas lining up with all this a particular way, which brings me to your comment and the article of deb houldings - mirror images..

what is masculine and feminine if not a type of mirror image of sorts? this 12 division of the circle seems to capture this a number of ways - masculine and feminine signs following one another just like the night follows the day which is another metaphorical means of saying much the same.. whether one wants to think in terms of signs, or sect or what have you - these mirror images -the ghost of one in the other- seem pervasive in astrological symbolism.

the ideas of antisicia are much the same - making connections to places on a circle that might not be immediately apparent but again are based on this basic division that i keep emphasizing - equinox - equal day/night, or solstice - extreme day/night right at the turn to move back the other way.

this is one reason why i like venus as a planet for the fall equinox - reaching out for a balance of sorts and perhaps a good reason why saturn is considered well placed in this sign too. is venus a mirror image for mars? most astrologers probably don't immediately think of these planets like that! it is interesting when one thinks of the glyphs for these planets - one a circle above a cross and the other a cross above a circle - well maybe that has changed to an arrow above a circle, but i believe a cross above a circle might be an old glyph of mars.. then we have saturn - a cross above a cresent, while the moon is a cresent without any cross to bear!!!!

bottom line - those anstisicia or contra antisicion points are based off those main lines.. equal day and night line - forget about these tropical zodiac names as it just confuses what needs to be the focus, or extreme day and night line position representing the solstice points.. then we have the mirror of one side looking over to the other side which is easiest to communicate via these signs - cancer to gemini - using the solstice point as the dividing line and etc etc.. is any of this making sense to you?

i like the idea of trying to figure out rulerships.. to me rulerships are just a concept like all these other concepts.. i don't care for the word itself - rulership - i like to think their are stronger or weaker associations between planets and times of the year, but just like taurus follows aries - or venus follows mars, so does it work on the other side - mars follows venus.. are those mirror images or am i imagining things? LOL.. i'll stop here..

Hi James

if you throw out the desire to latch something onto a sign it doesn't really matter what sign is on the spring equinox as the spring equinox is the main event, or more generally - the equinox and solstice are the main events in regard to turning points in the earth cycle round the sun..

Yes, that's what I mean.

this division of solar and lunar signs - the leo to cap being solar while the aquarius to cancer is lunar.. for me this division is much later after a number of other more significant symbolic divisions have been made. it breaks off the solstice line that is essential for someone focused on the earth/sun relationship as a primary division of the earth sun cycle.

No, that contradicts what you just said! It only breaks off the solstice line if you choose to call the solstice line "0? Cancer - 0? Capricorn". If you choose to call it 30 Cancer/30 Capricorn it corresponds to it completely. As you say "it doesn't matter what you call it as the equinox and solstice are the main events in regard to turning points in the earth cycle round the sun".
Imagine someone who knows nothing about astrological rulerships. Explain to him, in simple terms, what the equinoxes and solstices are. Then show him the circle of twelve signs and the planets associated with each. Ask him between which signs he would put the solstice and equinox axes. Common sense.
But I don't think I'm managing to make myself understood, never mind. Blame it on Cyril Fagan, who first planted the idea in my head:

[tropicalists] have no more justification in terming the vernal ppoint the zero-point of Aries than in naming it the zero-point of Pisces. Indeed, it would be more logical and consistent from their point of view to dub it the zero point of Taurus;

(Astrological Origins, p.104) He meant logical and consistent from the point of view of rulerships, rather than of names, though, he does also claim to trace the Egyptian zodiac (via the decans) back to days when the equinox was near the Pleiades, in what we would now call sidereal early Taurus.
Best
Graham

hi graham,
actually now i get what you are saying! it is confusing reading it by the names of signs though - 30 cancer/capricorn for example made me immediately think off the solstice line!!! you would like to move that to the solstice line.. now i believe i get it.. the basis for this is really rulership ideas, not sign ideas.. i can see what you are getting at. why bother why the names of these signs though? they are good reference points for all the astrologers who are used to them, but if you are going to move them i would personally just drop them! - james

James wrote:

why bother with the names of these signs though? they are good reference points for all the astrologers who are used to them, but if you are going to move them i would personally just drop them!

Indeed! I imagine that if people are still doing tropical astrology in 500 years time, they will have done!
Graham

Good morning,

Why wait another 500 tropical years? Let's do it now!

Required is a 12-member set of pronounceable mnemonics that include the 6, 4, 3 and 2 attributions of the signs of a tropical zodiac. One can take for example the first syllables of the Latin words for these attributes, since Latin is still the main base of many languages and of much astrological vocabulary in some others.

6 -> rising velocity combined with acceleration / deceleration (implied infinitesimal calculations in astrology?)

4 -> elements

3 -> modes

2 -> polarity

Since the 6's attributes each require two syllables, one has 12 5-syllable mnemonics.

Unless someone else be first, i hope and intend to propose a set, perhaps thus assuring immortality of my individual soul in the astrological hall of fame and gaining credits towards re-in-carnation as a sperm whale with a brain 5 times heavier than my present one.

Best regards,

lihin

Lihin
Good idea, and good luck!
What rulerships (or "associated planets", if you prefer) will you choose? That's what interests me, not the names, as that is what affects interpretation.
Will you respect a symmetry of rulerships corresponding to that of the rising times and day/night lengths (i.e. Summer solstice between the signs of the Moon and the Sun, Winter solstice between the two Saturn signs, and the others arranged accordingly, as if we were calling the the first tropical sign "Taurus" in the current system), or will you choose some other arrangement?
Your accumulation of merit will hinge on this.
Graham

Graham, I?m a beginner, and your post made me think. Thank you. In your original post, I see two questions. One involves your statement that the ?the [tropical] zodiac is considered to be arbitrary in terms of the constellations?, where I inserted ?tropical? where I think you meant that. The second involves the asymmetry between the tropical sign rulerships and the solstices. If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that since the invariant symmetry of antiscia is one elegant thing in tropical astrology, and if the mapping of zoidia to constellations is basically ?arbitrary?, why not set this mapping such that the rulerships are symmetric relative to the summer solstice? I think this is what you were saying.

I?d approach your first question with a question: Is it possible that the matching of zoidia to constellations was not "arbitrary", and was not entirely a one way street? Is it possible that the figures imagined in the sky actually could have come after some basic symbolic conception of the zoidia? At least in part? In other words, the all important seasons and agriculture are attended by observable things like an abundance of animals in the spring, and flooding in the rainy season. And this cycle begets explanatory legends and solar myths . And these beget the livestock-themed constellations we have in the spring, and the watery constellations of the near-eastern rainy season. Gavin White, in Babylonian Star Lore, seems to me to make this case, and postulates historical revisions in the constellations designed to compensate for outdated pictures in the sky that, due to precession, lose their connection to their season, the root of their symbolism. This book?s second appendix discusses this succinctly. The following two links (courtesy of NASA?s Astrophysics Data System) also discuss similar evolutions of projected astral pictures based on earthly experience, this time across cultures:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... .108....9R
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full ... .108...79R

I?m new to this, so please don?t take my conjecture as being brash. But could it be that, after millenia, after the inherent seasonal meanings of the zoidia were ?baked in? to the constellations, individuals in the west kind of stopped looking to the stars so much, and turned to, say, the Julian calendar to see when to plant or harvest? No further revisions of the constellations took place. To compensate for this neglected constellational revision, we now just allow the constellations to slide out from under the zoidia wholesale. Sure, echoes of past constellations exist, like the stars zubeneschamali and zubenelgenubi, the northern and southern ?claws?, falling off of the scorpion and joining the scales (a long process to be sure, given the age of the latter constellation). But this trick, far from arbitrary, is what allows us to keep the symbolism of the zoidia appropriate to the season. I guess Mr. Lihin above was onto something ? updating the skies, to reflect our experiences on earth, is overdue. I think he was being tongue-in-cheek, but if he can muster the collective cultural wisdom and belt out new constellations - compact ideograms correlating the above of the heavens with the below we experience here on earth - I too would be enthusiastic!

Regarding the asymmetry of sign rulerships relative to the summer solstice, Deb Houlding?s quoting of Ptolemy, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html,
describes ?heat and warmth? as the factor, not the solstices. I don?t believe I have the astronomic references some posters here have, so correct me if I?m off, but I went to the website www.holiday-weather.com (the first Google hit) and checked out Alexandria, Egypt, where I learned two things. First, you can?t ski in Alexandria. Second, it turns out that the temperature is bilaterally symmetric with highs in July and August, and lows in January and February. The axis of symmetry is indeed somewhere in the middle of each pair of months, consistent with the ?heat and warmth? logic of Ptolemy. The human body has a beautiful left-right symmetry on the outside but not the inside. The current tropical system has one such symmetry relative to the solstices, and another such symmetry relative to the heat experienced by people on earth. I?m not sure that the lack of complete coincidence between these two similarly structured symmetries reflects anything more inelegant than the hard facts of human experience which also shape the constellations.

Hello Phil
Thank you very much for this thoughtful and helpful post. Youv'e understood exactly what I was trying, perhaps not very clearly, to say, and raised several key points.

Is it possible that the figures imagined in the sky actually could have come after some basic symbolic conception of the zoidia? At least in part? In other words, the all important seasons and agriculture are attended by observable things like an abundance of animals in the spring, and flooding in the rainy season.

I think this is the most likely explanation for the identification and naming of the constellations (which of course don't exist per se). You quote Gavin White in this respect for Babylon; in the 70s, Fagan proposed a similar hypothesis for an Egyptian origin of the constellation names (in Astrological Origins) : e.g. the begginning of the Nile flooding in mid-July, corresponding with the heliacal rising of Sirius and with the acronychal (sunset) rising of the stars in what came to be Aquarius (or a full moon more or less in that constellation), an abundance of fish with the sunset rising of what came to be Pisces, a plague of insects when Scorpio rose in the evening, harvest time for Leo (the sickle), etc.

ke the stars zubeneschamali and zubenelgenubi, the northern and southern ?claws?, falling off of the scorpion and joining the scales (a long process to be sure, given the age of the latter constellation)

This is a very interesting point - perhaps a good example of zodiacal "slippage" to account for precession, as you suggest.

the temperature [in Alexandria] is bilaterally symmetric with highs in July and August, and lows in January and February. The axis of symmetry is indeed somewhere in the middle of each pair of months, consistent with the ?heat and warmth? logic of Ptolemy. The human body has a beautiful left-right symmetry on the outside but not the inside. The current tropical system has one such symmetry relative to the solstices, and another such symmetry relative to the heat experienced by people on earth. I?m not sure that the lack of complete coincidence between these two similarly structured symmetries reflects anything more inelegant than the hard facts of human experience which also shape the constellations.

This is the best explanation I've encountered of the apparent assymetry of the rulership arrangement of the tropical zodiac: it could represent a symmetry of subjectively experienced heat in Alexandria (and many other places in the northern hemisphere), rather than a symmetry of light around the solstice axis. This symmetry of heat is slightly skewed with respect to the solstice axis.
I'll try to check out Gavin White's work properly when I have time.
Thanks again.
Graham

The justification suggested by Phil (that the 0? Leo/0? Aquarius axis represents a symmetry of heat rather than of light) doesn't seem to quite fit what Ptolemy was saying. In Tetrabiblos I.10 (Robbins trans.):

Of the four seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, and winter, spring exceeds in moisture on account of its diffusion after the cold has passed and warmth is setting in; the summer, in heat, because of the nearness of the sun to the zenith; autumn more in dryness, because of the sucking up of the moisture during the hot season just past; and winter exceeds in cold, because the sun is farthest away from the zenith. For this reason, although there is no natural beginning of the zodiac, since it is a circle, they assume that the sign which begins with the vernal equinox, that of Aries, is the starting point of them all, making the excessive moisture of the spring the first part of the zodiac as though it were a living creature, and taking next in order the remaining seasons, because in all creatures the earliest ages, like the spring, have a larger share of moisture and are tender and still delicate. The second age, up to the prime of life, exceeds in heat, like summer; the third, which is now past the prime and on the verge of decline, has an excess of dryness, like autumn; and the last, which approaches dissolution, exceeds in its coldness, like winter.

Ptolemy says that the greatest heat is "because of the nearness of the sun to the zenith", the greatest cold "because the sun is farthest away from the zenith", and also associates Spring with moisture. I suppose you could say that Mars burns and creates moisture in the air, but Venus-Mercury-Moon would otherwise seem a good choice for the three months of spring (Mars' "burning" could thus precede the moisture of spring).
When Ptolemy says "they ['our predecessors'] assume that the sign which begins with the vernal equinox, that of Aries, is the starting point of them all, making the excessive moisture of the spring the first part of the zodiac" it sound like he's just talking about where the VP is sidereally in his day, that the sign containing the VP should be considered the 1st one.
Deborah Houlding (Understanding Planetary Dignity and Debility, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rulership.html) implies that the logic for the symmetry of the rulerships around the 0? Leo /0? Aquarius axis is based on a symmetry firstly of light, only secondarily (and consequently) of heat (my italics):

In Book I of his Tetrabiblos Ptolemy gives a clear explanation of the reasons for the arrangement of sign rulerships, showing how they are based upon a symmetrical pattern that extends from the luminaries. As in most ancient symbolism, the pivotal point in the underlying philosophy is the relationship of the Sun to the Earth. Hence the distribution of planets to signs begins at the cusp between Cancer and Leo where the power of the Sun is greatest (at least in the northern hemisphere where astrology evolved).
"Since the most productive of heat and warmth are Cancer and Leo, they assigned these to the greatest and most powerful heavenly bodies, the luminaries, as houses. Leo, which is masculine, to the Sun and Cancer, which is feminine, to the Moon."

The five visible planets are then distributed between the ten remaining signs in such a way that each has a 'day house' in a masculine sign and a 'nocturnal house' in a feminine sign. (It is, of course, fitting that the luminaries rule only one sign each since the Sun loses its power in a feminine sign, just as the Moon loses its potency in masculine signs.)

And the diagram she provides says what I was trying to say much more clearly - that the most logical beginning for a permanent tropical zodiac would be Taurus, ruled by Venus. I should have posted it in the beginning: The VP was of course at the end of the constellation Aries and the beginning of Taurus (and the SS at the beginning of Leo, or between Cancer and Leo), in the early second millenium BCE, and it seems the earliest Babylonian star catalogues reflect this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_star_catalogues):

Among the most ancient constellations are those that marked the four cardinal points of the year in the Middle Bronze Age, i.e.
Taurus "The Bull", from GU4.AN.NA "The Steer of Heaven", marking vernal equinox
Leo "The Lion", from UR.GU.LA "The Lion", marking summer solstice
Scorpius "The Scorpion", from GIR.TAB "The Scorpion", marking autumn equinox
Capricornus "Goat-Horned", from SU?UR.MA? "The Goat-Fish", marking winter solstice. It is a mythological hybrid depicted on boundary stones from before 2000 BC as a symbol of Ea.
There are other constellation names which can be traced to Bronze Age origins, including Gemini "The Twins", from MA?.TAB.BA.GAL.GAL "The Great Twins", Cancer "The Crab", from AL.LUL "The Crayfish", among others.

Graham

hi graham,

i continue to enjoy and be confused by just what you are trying to arrive at here.

does one make the earth and the fact astrology seems to have been developed in the northern hemisphere the basis for any beginnings, or does one make it the sun? wanting to put emphasis on the lights sun/moon and heat - remember this is all symbolism as i understand it anyway- is different then acknowledging a starting point of the cycle based off growth, verses decay which is captured well with the spring and fall equinox in the northern hemi.

maybe you are just trying to arrive at why the rulerships were given the way they were.. if that is the case, i think you are making headway!

i was thinking right after i wrote this about the polarity of saturn and the moon, as opposed to saturn and sun. for me while saturn seems a natural indicator for death in so far as it rules the first part of winter, it is also a symbol for our ability to consider the future and make plans for the future. i think it is future oriented. janus the 2 headed god, or goddess looks back and forward into the past and into the future which i think fits with saturns rulership over the beginning of winter and the change to increasing day length after the longest night of the year represented by the winter solstice. the moon on the other hand is very much concerned with the past and marks the beginning of the decline of light at the beginning of the summer solstice. in this sense the moon is a good symbol for death as well in so far as it is the end of greater light and the beginning of greater darkness. all of this is northern hemisphere based, but i do like saturn and the moon as ruling over the beginning of winter and summer symbolically.