Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello
In Chris Brennan's Astrology Podcast episode 250, Intro to Hellenistic Astrology with Alan White, I was interested to find that White insisted that the Sun rules Cancer, and the Moon's co-rulership reflects smply an affinity. This is from the transcript (it's after the lecture, Chris's interview with Alan):

"And some [issues] I refused to back down on, which is why he [Schmidt] still calls me a ‘heretic’ if it isn’t 100% Hellenistic on certain subjects. I mean, like the Sun ruling Cancer—this is one of my things and I refuse to budge on. I mean, it makes too much sense for it to be otherwise.
CB: Right, based on the Persian passage from the sage’s book that the Sun rules both of those signs or something?
AW: Yeah, what he says is that the Moon moves too fast to have its own zoidion. However, because of its affinity to Cancer, we will allow it co-rulership with the Sun.
CB: Right.
AW: And the Sun therefore takes its ‘feminine’ domicile in Cancer, which makes a great deal of sense because it puts it opposite Saturn’s domicile. So you now have the Sun opposite both of Saturn’s domicile, okay?
CB: Right.
AW: And the Sun now has two domiciles. One of them is like ‘fission’ and the other’s like ‘fusion’, but it’s still thermodynamic energy. I mean, what do you do with the Sun at night? It’s still being the Sun, okay? However, you can’t see it, so it’s kind of a ‘sneaky’ Sun."

i'd been asking myself the same question, for much the same reasons and a couple of others relating to the way the Moon is used in horary, and that its "mulatrikona" or root sign in Indian astrology is Taurus (its sort of favourite sign, so to speak). All the other planets' mulatrikona are in a sign ruled by that planet (the positive sign, so maybe the Moon not having one is why it favours its exaltation sign). I also wondered if anyone has considered assigning both Cancer and Leo to the Sun by day, the Moon by night - sect seems to be increasingly recognised as fundamental in ancient astrology.
Anyway, I've serched and searched, whatever I could find on Zorastrian/Persian astrology on internet, the Bundahishn, Jamasp etc, i found things which give a context that would fit with White's position (overriding primacy of the Sun in the cosmology), but not this specific doctrine.
Does anyone know where this idea comes from? What "the Persian passage from the sage’s book" that Chris refers to could be? i haven'tbeen able to get an answer from Chris, who must of course be very busy with the podcast and videos, courses and preparing his upcoming horary course.
Many thanks for any help.
Graham

Graham F wrote: Sun Mar 24, 2024 9:30 pm Anyway, I've serched and searched, whatever I could find on Zorastrian/Persian astrology on internet, the Bundahishn, Jamasp etc, i found things which give a context that would fit with White's position (overriding primacy of the Sun in the cosmology), but not this specific doctrine.
Does anyone know where this idea comes from? What "the Persian passage from the sage’s book" that Chris refers to could be? i haven'tbeen able to get an answer from Chris, who must of course be very busy with the podcast and videos, courses and preparing his upcoming horary course.
Many thanks for any help.
Graham

Hi Graham,

I think they may be referring to a passage in The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek translated by Robert Schmidt. Section 6 is on Zoroaster which includes a translation of CCAG 8,3: 120-122 and lists the domiciles of the planets: "And concerning zodiacal habitation they say that it is divided into six houses in the following fashion:...the house of the Sun, Leo and Cancer..." and "there is no house of the Moon, but by sympathy, Leo and Cancer being the houses of the Sun, the Moon is coinhabitant of Cancer" (p 25)

A footnote says "Notice that the Sun gets both Cancer and Leo. However, just below this the Moon is associated with the Sun in Cancer. There are many ways in which much of later astrology treats Cancer and Leo as a pair like Aquarius and Capricorn."

Hope that's of some help. The only other similar reference I can think of was in Al'Qabisi where planets in Cancer and Leo can considered as though they were in a mitigated conjunction by 'like-engirding' as the 'the lights' can be treated as 'one ruler' (can't recall the page reference at the moment).

@janegca : many thanks, this must indeed be the pasage they were referring to, I should have tried here first! I will try and check out the context, and also al-Qabisi.
Graham

Accrding to the German astrologer Franz Frickler (he died in the Fifties) the Sun rules Leo and Cancer (secondary rulership), the Moon rules Cancer and Leo (secondary.). He wrote that only by doing so the harmony within the Zodiac could be secured (with each planet ruling two signs, including the Lights). Frickler's books: "Ausklänge, Symbole" and "Die Brücke zur Erschließung des Schicksals". Actually I found his ideas quite convincing.

@Lunlumo : thank you for this, sounds quite sensible. Do you know if Franz Frickler envisaged the idea of Sun ruling both by day, Moon by night?

One thing I like about Alan White's Zorastrian idea is that it keeps a clear and neat mirror scheme of a half cycle of the zodiac "going down" away from the Sun, and another "going up" towards it. But I think the Moon could be seen as everwhere, going busily about the distribution of light from the Sun to the other planets and chart factors, rather than ruling a major place in this solar zodiac. Rather like the Egyptian Thoth, Moon god and secretary, assistant and scribe to the Sun - but not, I think, considered as his offspring or lineage as the other major gods seem to have been. The solar and lunar calendars seem to have been parallel systems in Egypt, until the solar one became more rationalised and came to dominate, with the lunar calendar adjusted to fit within it (I simplify as best I can from what I've understood!).

A problem with giving rulership to the Moon is that it completely changes the logic of the rulership scheme: while on the Leo side the sequence is based on the distance from the Sun (excluding Earth/Moon), if the Moon is at the "top" it's the Chaldean order based on apparent velocity - but without the Sun in the sequence.
I'll look up Frickler and try to muddle through the German, if I can find it!
Graham

Graham F wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2024 1:46 pm @Lunlumo : thank you for this, sounds quite sensible. Do you know if Franz Frickler envisaged the idea of Sun ruling both by day, Moon by night?

Hmm, not really... I'll have a closer look, an important question indeed.
As to the books: For decades they have no longer been in print, but some copies may still be available (amazon etc ...) Frickler was mainly concerned with his idea of the "Ausklang" of each sign. "Ausklang" is only partly translated by "conclusion"., "Finale" (as in music) gets closer to it. ("Klang" is a more or less harmonious sound .) Each sign finds its "finale", its final expression, in the eighth sign following it = the sign following the opposing sign. So e.g. Scopio has its finale in Gemini. I might give some examples demonstrating this interesting view in another thread (not here, as it has not much to do with what is being discussed here).
Lunlumo