Skyscript Astrology Forum

South Node is often said in traditional astrology to be a debility, and similar to the nature of Saturn.

I?ve read somewhere that it is akin to a "fall" degree for any planet or point that happens to be conjunct to it.

I?ve also read that the SN is karmic and where you are caught in the past. I don?t really like this interpretation since the dispositor of my chart and dispositor of the North Node is conjunct South Node. There must be some way forward, in any case.

To me the reasons for accidental debility in a chart associated with the planets and houses is simple except for the Nodes. With the Sun, combustion is obvious, the Sun is blinding for any planet in its presence, hard aspects with Mars and Saturn are obvious, both these bringing aggression, accidents and melancholy; excessiveness in the natures of these planets. Houses 6,8 and 12 are evil because of the rulership of disease, death and hidden enemies and so planets in these houses suffer misfortune according to the houses. Planets Slow and Retrograde are also obviously debilitated; they aren?t happily moving forward, but stuck, moving in the opposite direction to the rest of the planets.

But here?s the big question: The South Node as with the North is simply a place where eclipses and Lunations can occur. In this light there is nothing to mark any difference between the two, apart from the fact that North is ascending into the Northern hemisphere while South descends into the Southern hemisphere.

The polarity ought to be to Aries-Libra rather than Saturn-Jupiter which is the traditional association.

Although once again the exaltation of NN is in Gemini while the exaltation of the SN is in Sagittarius...It?s PERPLEXING because ruler of Sagittarius is in fact Jupiter... the Exaltation of a supposedly Saturn-like point?

The question I ask then is what the difference is between a Solar Eclipse ascending over equator towards the Norther Hemisphere and a Solar Eclipse descending into the Southern Hemisphere?

I know that Lilly treats the South and North node as equal points in a surprising number of cases despite the fact that he also has them as polar opposites when it comes to fortune-misfortune:

"North Node or South Node in the 4th house with Mars or Saturn do denote but a short life..."

Another example:

"Moon with North Node OR South Node shows Active spirits, prompt in any science..."

Of Mercury:

"When he is with North Node or South Node, he renders most accute and witty and good linguists, speaking many languages..."

One with North Node as source of short life:

"Sun with North Node shows the Father to be of good parents, but the native not long lived..."


Lilly states contrarily again that South Node in the Ascendant denotes dangerous birth, and with North Node easy birth.

"South Node is equal to the infortunes, yet not wholly as bad as Mars in matters of friendship..."

"Saturn in the 12th house with South Node shows hanging. You must ever note that a benevolent planet mitigate these judgements."




There is some evidence for the questionability of the nature of the Nodes. I don?t really care for quoting a balanced point of view since this is really a rebellion against tradition using the traditional text itself. Lilly states in many places that the South Node causes phlegm, troubles with kidneys and with the left eye in relation to the Moon, (the right eye in relation with Sun).

In summary then, the nodes emit no light, as with the P.O.F. but unlike Fortune, Nodes are related to the Sun-Moon intersection and the point of Lunations and the only difference that I see is the difference between Ascending and Descending which is a false terminology because they are merely moving to North hemisphere and South hemisphere, in the Southern hemisphere, NN would actually be descending.

However, regardless these points to me are confluent with equinoxes, in relation to the Sun ascending into the Northern hemisphere and falling in the Southern. I am interested in seeing what other?s opinions and knowledge on the nodes are which also contradicts the assumed understanding.

It's not a good idea to duplicate the same thread over more than one section of hte forum (replies go all over the place), so I have deleted the copy of this question that was placed in the general forum because this version seems slightly longer.

Deb

Fellow skyscribe Cleleia Romano has published a very good article on the nodes on her site www.astrologiahumana.com/articles.htm She has provided a number of delineations.

Regards

Matthew

Deb wrote:It's not a good idea to duplicate the same thread over more than one section of hte forum (replies go all over the place), so I have deleted the copy of this question that was placed in the general forum because this version seems slightly longer.

Deb

Yeah sorry I wrote the other one intended for general discussion with inclusion of modern ideas, since I am questioning traditional black-white viewpoint, but then I found myself writing an extensive criticism of Lilly which ought to go into the Traditional section.

So that?s why I pasted it in here as well. I would like all opinions especially anything that can bring new light to the question. Thanks Much.

matt23z wrote:Fellow skyscribe Cleleia Romano has published a very good article on the nodes on her site www.astrologiahumana.com/articles.htm She has provided a number of delineations.

Regards

Matthew

Thanks for this, it?s promising, reading it right now. Vettius Valens considered the Ascending Node (North Node) as malicious especially with Moon. WOW.

Yes I agree with Clelia Romano, Lilly is merely a slave to the Medievalists. He doesn?t have conviction in the Nodes and because he doen?t have conviction that?s the reason for his occasional contradictions on them. Where his personal findings and research supported conclusions which were in direct conflict with those earlier Astrologers.

He states, from Romano:

"It is the constant opinion of the ancients, but in which it is based, I don?t know"

Lilly saying that he doesn?t know why it is... yet that it is, and that?s the reason for the contrant contradiction.

Lilly copied and pasted the bit about hunchback and crookedness directly from Ptolemy. : )

matt23z wrote:Fellow skyscribe Cleleia Romano has published a very good article on the nodes on her site www.astrologiahumana.com/articles.htm She has provided a number of delineations.

Regards

Matthew

Thanks Matthew, Clelia Romano?s article is like a refreshing breeze. I read through all of it in great detail and found it to be very authoritative.


One thing she highlights is that of North Node?s malignancy in equal if not greater proportion to the South. The Suicide victim had Ascendant ruler Jupiter in domicile fast and direct outside of combustion and sun?s beams, with no contact with ruler of the 8th or with Saturn.

Conjunct Mars in triplicity for sure, but a Mars ruler of the 11th and the 4th.

Jupiter was not on South Node but close to the North Node. Dispositor of the North Node conjunct the North Node, dispositor of the Ascendant... Not only dispositor of the Acendant, but dispositor of the entire Chart... ALL planets are disposited by North Node Jupiter that has seemingly only Mars conjoined as an accidental misfortune.

Night Sky, you quote a lot of as interesting as astonishing statements of Lilly - you are right! Im very interested to read them all in their contexts. Would you mind to give us the appropriate pages if possible? I know it's a bit complicated but if you do: Thank YOU very much!

Johannes

If chapters are not too long, quototions by 'chapters' would do of course!

It would be difficult to go looking now, I don?t have the time right now, but you?ll find it all in book 3 of Christian Astrology.

On the other hand though, I myself would like to know where Romano has found Lilly?s qoute on why he doesn?t know why. I think that explains a lot of what I was upset about.

There is a lot of material in the traditional texts which is simply taken as granted from previous texts with no reason. It?s just a matter of searching through and finding the reasons why people did things.

If traditional quotations are included in this forum to make critical arguments, they ought to be accompanied by references that enable other members to see check the quotation in context. To say it is in a certain book is not very helpful really.

Also Nightsky, I don?t see the central relevance of Lilly in this thread, and I find it hard to take some of your comments seriously because you don?t seem to understand how Lilly and other astrologers of his period worked. Comments like ?Lilly copied and pasted the bit about hunchback and crookedness directly from Ptolemy.? seem to come from a bias against Lilly, and your ?upset? with him makes it look like you think he invented the theory that he passed on in his work. But he gave the traditional theory that he was aware of, and added his own opinion, whilst confessing that he had some personal confusion over the matter ? what is there to get upset about? From what I can tell Lilly seems to have been most strongly influenced by Bonatti in his own approach to the nodes.

I?m sure Lilly would have loved to have been able to ?copy and paste?, but in his day, it was necessary to translate and transmit, which is why he acknowledges his sources, including Ptolemy, in his introduction. Apart from a few personal comments and inserted remarks here and there, almost all of the theory in Christian Astrology is translated out of older works. What Lilly did, which was very uncommon for his day, was to translate into English, filling out the theory with many example charts from his own experience, and he originated the style of his introductory volume, which many subsequent astrologers copied. What he didn?t do, was to claim some kind of authoritative, self-originated knowledge on the nodes. I?m wary of adding more into this thread because I can?t help wondering if there is a biased agenda, which is more about knocking Lilly than seeking traditional understanding of the nodes.