Skyscript Astrology Forum

Konrad wrote:Therese, by that I meant that I see no reason theoretically that the Sun rules Sidereal Leo, not that there is no practical evidence.

What would be the convincing theoretical reason for the Sun ruling sidereal Cancer?

Personally, I think a homology between the Lion, the King and the Sun is much easier to defend than, say, the idea that there should be twelve equal and astrologically meaningful zodiacal signs (though I believe that there are).

Martin Gansten wrote:

Konrad wrote:Therese, by that I meant that I see no reason theoretically that the Sun rules Sidereal Leo, not that there is no practical evidence.

What would be the convincing theoretical reason for the Sun ruling sidereal Cancer?

Personally, I think a homology between the Lion, the King and the Sun is much easier to defend than, say, the idea that there should be twelve equal and astrologically meaningful zodiacal signs (though I believe that there are).

I'm pretty happy with Ptolemy's reasoning given in Book 1, Ch. 17 of the Tetrabibilos. I have some other thoughts, but now is not the time for them to be expressed as I haven't thought them through fully. I see the Heliacal rising of Gemini and the Sun's position at that time being important to it though.

I don't think that position of Sun->king->Leo is that easily defendable - as I've said, Aldebaran was the star for powerful nativities in the ancient catalogues, but Venus rules its sign? You also have the link there only "working" with the Sun. What do fish have to do with Jupiter, or Saturn with men pouring water? Really though, the issue I can't reconcile Sidereally is that in a few thousand years, you're going to have Saturn ruling in the Summer with the Sun at its highest point and the luminaries ruling when the Sun is at its lowest point. It is counter-intuitive and contradicts the significations of all three.

Konrad wrote:

Federer is a good case. Venus doesn't describe his profession, and you would expect that she would if Sidereal Taurus was ruled by Venus. However, Mercury rules both Spirit and the 10th sign while casting his ray into the sign. He is also the bound lord of both. Tennis seems very Mercurial to me.

Taurus is the sidereal sign on the 10th cusp. Thus Venus is the focal point of profession or reputation.

Venus is angular in the 1st house suggesting a prominent profession noted by others.

Venus receives the 4 degree aspect from Mars in Gemini (tennis).

Venus is also the 3rd house lord (hands and arms).

Venus is the only strongly angular planet in Roger Federer's chart. Thus, as a receptor point for aspects it's extremely important.

Then we can extend the symbolism if we wish. The Sun disposits Venus and is in the 12th with quick moving Mercury. (12th is the house of the feet.) Then we continue the flow of energy from Mercury-Sun: Dispositor Moon is in the 3rd. So there is a link between the 3rd and the 12th. (Body part symbolism only, feet and arms used in tennis.) Oh, and Mars in Gemini is trine the 3rd house Moon.

Federer's chart is a very good example of the gestalt of the astrological chart. But without the life history of a person astrologers probably wouldn't know which of the many attributes of the planets to apply in a reading.

You wrote: "Tennis seems very Mercurial to me." Mercury rules many things, but in this case Mercury isn't directly connected to either the 3rd of the 10th in the sidereal zodiac.

You say that Mercury rules the 10th sign. Is this in your own unique system, or are you referencing the tropical zodiac?

House lords as such don't necessarily describe affairs of a house. But they are receptor points for aspects, and of course their position in the circle as measured from the ascendant is critical.

There was a comment in this thread that Aldebaran was related to kingship. Federer's nonagesimal point (highest point of the ecliptic 90 degrees from the ascendant) is 17Tau31. Aldebaran is at 16 Taurus (Krisnamurti)...tennis "kingship." (I've been experimenting with fixed star positions at the nonagesimal point.)

Konrad wrote:

I don't think that position of Sun->king->Leo is that easily defendable - as I've said, Aldebaran was the star for powerful nativities in the ancient catalogues, but Venus rules its sign?

I doubt very much that any planet or sign "rules" a fixed star. We have only a few possible correlations such as Regulus in the constellation of Leo. Individual stars seem to be unique and independent of signs of the zodiac. (But, of course this is another research topic.) However, constellational mythology seems to be part of (sidereal) sign symbolism.

...by that I meant that I see no reason theoretically that the Sun rules Sidereal Leo, not that there is no practical evidence.

There are good theoretical reasons for the Sun being associated with Leo, but why do we need much more than plain and simple practical examples?? Astrologers seem to be particularly weak when it comes to the practical demonstration of astrological principles...which means a great deal of exchange of heated air: mental exercises with little practical value. Is this what we want astrology to be now and in the future?

Konrad wrote:

[Re: planetary rulership of signs] What do fish have to do with Jupiter, or Saturn with men pouring water?

At this time in history we have a perfect example of the prominence of constellational mythology in world affairs. Neptune has been transiting sidereal Aquarius since 2009. I don't have at hand the beginning of the "coming out" of the LBGT (lesbian, bi-sexual, gay, transgender) communities, but at this time in many countries laws are being passed to give LBGT couples equal rights under the law.

It's not generally known that the mythology of Ganymede has been associated with the constellation of Aquarius. Zeus fell in love with the handsome Ganymede, and took him home to be his companion and cup bearer of the gods. This story is one of the first examples of male homosexuality in Greek religion. (Sesti, The Glorious Constellations, p. 227)

Twenty years ago gay marriage did not exist. Today gay marriage is legal in a number of countries. There is, of course, heated controversy in some underdeveloped countries on the legality and religious rights of LBGT couples. Severe prejudice still exists. But major inroads are being made in the area of recognition and equal rights for relationships that were kept under cover and unrecognized in the past.

So constellation myth does play a part in star groups within sidereal signs. This is a study area that has not yet been explored in a major way. Perhaps the best approach is thorough mundane astrology and world trends and events.

Konrad wrote:I'm pretty happy with Ptolemy's reasoning given in Book 1, Ch. 17 of the Tetrabibilos.

OK. I think that's very unsatisfactory, but to each his own. I was just interested to know whether you had found any more coherent argument than Ptolemy's.

I don't think that position of Sun->king->Leo is that easily defendable - as I've said, Aldebaran was the star for powerful nativities in the ancient catalogues, but Venus rules its sign? You also have the link there only "working" with the Sun. What do fish have to do with Jupiter, or Saturn with men pouring water?

Regardless of which zodiac you use, it is entirely based on the two signs assigned to the luminaries; the rest are distributed according to the apparent velocity (the 'spheres') of the planets. Otherwise you'd have to contend that the Moon and Mercury are hotter than Mars, etc.

Granted that Aldebaran was considered a powerful star, the Lion as a symbol was connected with kingship in a way that the Bull was not.

Really though, the issue I can't reconcile Sidereally is that in a few thousand years, you're going to have Saturn ruling in the Summer with the Sun at its highest point and the luminaries ruling when the Sun is at its lowest point. It is counter-intuitive and contradicts the significations of all three.

'Summer' and 'highest/lowest' are relative terms, as you know. With your system, what is now something like 700 million to a billion people and increasing (namely, the population of the southern hemisphere) will forever have Saturn ruling the Sun in the summer, when it is at its highest point.

'Summer' and 'highest/lowest' are relative terms, as you know. With your system, what is now something like 700 million to a billion people and increasing (namely, the population of the southern hemisphere) will forever have Saturn ruling the Sun in the summer, when it is at its highest point.

Just one more thing, as it doesn't really concern me that people use my methods or whether I am considered "right" or not, but I reverse Southern Hemisphere rulerships. I find it baffling that Tropical astrologers don't, as what other basis is there for their rulership system than the seasons?

Federer has 10th lord Venus in sidereal leo in 1st and would you believe it:
The origin of Lawn Tennis is from Royal and Real Tennis(AKA- the sport of Kings) with patronage and active involvement of the Royals of England and France.

Anything more Royal than that ?

http://www.royaltenniscourt.com/the-game/history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_tennis

And as if that was not enough, Tropical Mercury(10th lord) would be in Leo as well.

Looks like it doesn't matter much the planets find a way.

PD

Konrad wrote:

Just one more thing, as it doesn't really concern me that people use mymethods or whether I am considered "right" or not, but I reverse Southern I find it baffling that Tropical astrologers don't, as what other basis is there for their rulership system than the seasons?

Your asking a question on the sidereal forum of tropical astrolgers yet if we attempt a detailed reply here I am sure the moderator will consider it off topic. See the problem?

To save time here just look at this thread The Tropical Zodiac and the Southern Hemisphere.

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


The general experience is that reversing just doesn't work. See the discussion on this above.

Secondly, why assume domicile rulerships were originally assigned seasonally? I refer you to the comments of Michael Sternbach in the above thread which discuss the theory that the domicile rulerships were assigned out from the luminaries based on the respective speed or velocity of the planets.

Mark

Mark wrote:Konrad wrote:

Just one more thing, as it doesn't really concern me that people use mymethods or whether I am considered "right" or not, but I reverse Southern I find it baffling that Tropical astrologers don't, as what other basis is there for their rulership system than the seasons?

Your asking a question on the sidereal forum of tropical astrolgers yet if we attempt a detailed reply here I am sure the moderator will consider it off topic. See the problem?

To save time here just look at this thread The Tropical Zodiac and the Southern Hemisphere.

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


The general experience is that reversing just doesn't work. See the discussion on this above.

Secondly, why assume domicile rulerships were originally assigned seasonally? I refer you to the comments of Michael Sternbach in the above thread which discuss the theory that the domicile rulerships were assigned out from the luminaries based on the respective speed or velocity of the planets.

Mark

Actually, it was a rhetorical question, Mark, but thanks for the links and things anyway. I've read the posts before, and heard all of the arguments.

Just to say, I wouldn't argue that all of the rulerships were seasonally-based, but that the Sun's definitely is based upon its traversal to and from the Solstice.

Konrad wrote:

I've read the posts before, and heard all of the arguments.

Ok. Its just it didn't look that way from the way you framed your question.

Mark

Konrad wrote:Just one more thing, as it doesn't really concern me that people use my methods or whether I am considered "right" or not, but I reverse Southern Hemisphere rulerships.

I see. I agree that that's more internally consistent -- more, but not fully so. First there is the obvious problem of what to do about zodiac rulerships for locations actually on the equator; but a more serious problem is the rather large portions of the earth located in the tropics, including most of Africa and South America.

For these locations, the days in the year when the Sun reaches its highest point in the sky (namely, the zenith) will not coincide with either solstice. In Chennai, India, for instance, it will be on 25 April, almost two months before the solstice, and then again on 18 August, two months after it. So should we say that, for the latitude of Chennai, the rulership scheme is not only two signs different from a location north of the tropics, like Delhi, but that it is actually structured quite differently? If not (and I can see that it would be a very awkward position to take), the argument about the Sun reaching its highest point in the sky will have to be rejected, and some other argument found.

Just to say, I wouldn't argue that all of the rulerships were seasonally-based, but that the Sun's definitely is based upon its traversal to and from the Solstice.

Even north of the tropics, I don't think it's clear how the solstice falling in sidereal Gemini would make the Sun rule sidereal Cancer.