Skyscript Astrology Forum

Outer Planets and the Zodiac: Part 1

For a long time I?ve seen the solar/lunar halves of the zodiac as the key to outer planet affinities. though this division has fallen into disuse in modern times. This division of the zodiac is known in both East and West, and is mentioned in several texts including Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos.

In his discussion of signs of the zodiac, Johannes Schoener calls the diurnal or day signs of the zodiac the planets's principal signs while the night signs are termed secondary. (Opusculum Astrologicum, Golden Hind Press, 1994) Bonatti terms these zodiac halves "greater" or "lesser" which he relates to ascension times, but says, "And [the lesser] is called the half of the Moon, because the Moon has such virtue in that whole half..." (Bonatti on Basic Astrology, Cazimi Press, 2010, p.49)

Perhaps the most intriguing view of the relationship between the planetary gods and signs is suggested by a note on sign-planetary affinities first published in 1995 by Project Hindsight in the booklet The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek. A text fragment, supposedly of ancient Persian Zoroastrian origins assigns planets as the co-inhabitants of signs of the zodiac. If this fragment does indeed come from an ancient Persian source, it indicates that the Zoroastrian priests apparently had a grasp of signs that could only be called contemporary.

And concerning zodiacal habitation, they say that it is divided into six domiciles in the following fashion: the domiciles of Kronos [Saturn] are Capricorn and Aquarius; of Zeus [Jupiter], Sagittarius and Pisces; of Ares [Mars], Scorpio and Aries; of Aphrodite [Venus], Libra and Taurus; of Hermes [Mercury], Virgo and Gemini; of the Sun, Leo and Cancer. The co-inhabitants of these... (Leo through Capricorn deleted for brevity)

It is the co-inhabitants of the lunar half of the zodiac that is of interest when considering the outers. From the text:

Aquarius: Artemis [who lived remote from mankind on mountain tops and forests] with Kronos
(Artemis is not Uranus, but she shares the planet's quality of remoteness and individuality.)

Pisces: Poseidon [Neptune] with Zeus

Aries: Pluto with Ares

Taurus: Imeros [god of desire] with Aphrodite

Gemini: Nephele [a phantom-like woman] with Hermes

(CCAG 8, 3; 120-122, page 23 of The Astrological Record of the Early Sages in Greek, (translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by Robert Hand) Project Hindsight, 1995)

Robert Schmidt (Phasewatch, 1997) has suggested that the co-inhabitants of each sign may be meant to bring out how the planet behaves in its different domiciles, so that Aphrodite may be mutual love in Libra [or the responsibility of marriage, Libra being Saturn's exaltation sign], but desire in Taurus, a more bohemian placement. It's also possible that the co-inhabitants describe some characteristics of the signs themselves.

A Possible Philosophical Foundation for the Discovery of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto:
These two divisions were sometimes referred to as day and night halves of the zodiac. Before the discovery of the trans-Saturnian planets and the psychology of the individual, the needs of society as a whole tended to be paramount. The ancient solar half of the zodiac (Leo through Capricorn) represented social roles and one's duty to society. (The Sun shines during the day when most of the work of society is done.) The lunar half of the zodiac (Cancer backwards through Aquarius) may represent personal or individual growth without concern for the demands and obligations of society.

Before contemporary times the masses (represented by the Moon) were considered as a group with little or no attention being given to individual differences and personal needs. Astrology understands the Moon as symbolizing consciousness. I haven?t studied what has been called "evolutionary astrology," but at least in metaphysical circles it's believed that we are on the threshold of a leap in human consciousness.

The current world chaos is seen as a reflection of the clash of the old world view in conflict with the new in-coming energies. I suspect that many astrologers would link these coming changes to the three outer planets beyond Saturn. I believe (based on the diagram in part 2) that there is some validity to that connection.

Thus, we might say that in relationship to planetary affinity, the lunar side of the zodiac in a general way symbolizes developing human consciousness, new avenues of inner awareness that were only in seed form in prior centuries. The discipline of psychology is the most obvious testimony of concern for the individual rather than emphasis on the masses as a group, the old solar way.

(Part 2: continued in next post)

Outer Planets and the Zodiac: Part 2

An example of why I believe that the schema in the diagram below may make sense only in the sidereal zodiac is the Aries/Scorpio affinity with Mars. In the tropical zodiac Aries is often seen as almost purely Martian in its energy. In the sidereal zodiac it's Scorpio (which has the characteristics of tropical Sagittarius) which is the primary sign of Mars.

Sidereal Aries (tropical Taurus characteristics) is Mars with an inward rather than outward focus: determination, stubbornness, concentration. This is one explanation of why western sidereal astrologers have given Pluto to Aries rather than Scorpio. Similarly, all the zodiac sign meanings must be adjusted for the sidereal zodiac.

I believe the diagram posted here deserves careful study. (EDIT April, 2015: Although I believe that sign characteristics fit best in the sidereal zodiac, the diagram itself is generic in relation to zodiacs as discussed in posts below.)



The zodiac signs in the center are the exaltation signs of the planets. This zodiac is in the ordinary order of signs from Aries to Pisces.

The center ring planets are next to their exaltation signs. The traditional planets are colored blue.

The outer ring signs are the domiciles or home signs of the exalted planets. Each traditional planet is "at home" in a sign in the solar half of the zodiac. Note that each domicile is opposite its normal sign in the outer ring across the circle. (not on the diagonal as the inner sign circle):

Venus with Libra (across from Aries)
Mars with Scorpio (next to Taurus)
Saturn with Capricorn (across from Cancer)
Mercury with Virgo (across from Pisces)
Jupiter with Sagittarius (next to Gemini)

Once the solar or day signs of the traditional planets are aligned, it's a simple matter to fill in the remaining signs. In this scheme the domiciles or home signs of the new planets are all in the lunar half of the zodiac:

Uranus with Aquarius (exaltation in Scorpio)
Neptune with Pisces (exaltation in Gemini)
Pluto with Aries (exaltation in Sagittarius)

Only two domicile and signs without exalted planets remain, and they are together in the diagram:

The lord of Taurus will be exalted in Aquarius (I have suggested Persephone.)
The lord of Gemini will be exalted in Leo (I have suggested Apollo.)

As it will likely take us many years to adjust to productively using the three outer planet energies, the possible discovery of two remaining planets may be far in the future, perhaps far enough (as metaphysicians might say) for the discovery of astral planets which would not be visible today. Perhaps by then we may easily transition back and forth between realms. The contemporary discovery that all matter is simply energy is the first glimpse of a door opening to the future.

The next step is to illustrate outer planet affinities using biographical information of individuals who have emphasis in the various zodiacal signs.

Therese Hamilton wrote:The ancient solar half of the zodiac (Leo through Capricorn) represented social roles and one's duty to society. (The Sun shines during the day when most of the work of society is done.) The lunar half of the zodiac (Aquarius through Cancer) may represent personal or individual growth without concern for the demands and obligations of society.

Therese do you have a source which states that this is how the solar and lunar hemispheres of the zodiac were understood?

In the tropical zodiac Aries is seen as almost purely Martian in its energy. In the sidereal zodiac it's Scorpio (which has the characteristics of tropical Sagittarius) which is the primary sign of Mars.

I'm afraid I don't agree at that in the Tropical zodiac Aries is seen as purely Martian in its energy. Can you provide a source from the tradition which specifies something of this nature that Aries is more 'mars-connected' than Scorpio and that this is unique to the Tropical Zodiac in a way that is impossible or not employed in the Sidereal?

Aries (tropical Taurus characteristics) is Mars with an inward rather than outward focus: determination, stubbornness, concentration. This is one explanation of why western sidereal astrologers have given Pluto to Aries rather than Scorpio. Similarly, all the zodiac sign meanings must be adjusted for the sidereal zodiac.

Sorry, I am not following. You are saying that the reason that Pluto is assigned to Aries rather than Scorpio is because of X - but I missed the part where we reduced our set of signs from 12 to 2 and were left with only two candidates for Pluto's assignation - either Aries or Scorpio. I also do not follow why Sidereally Mars in Aries is 'inward' and how or why this relates to Pluto.

If a scheme requires that all the zodiac signs need to be adjusted if you wish to employ the sidereal zodiac then really all you are doing is employing the tropical zodiac and renaming it - or merging the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. This is not something that sidereal astrologers tend to suggest however.

If you theory predicates that the scheme only works with the sidereal zodiac, but actually turns out to not be the sidereal zodiac, but instead a new sidereal zodiac of your own making, then really you're inventing the whole scheme to begin with.

The outer ring planets are the zodiac day half domiciles or home signs of the exalted planets.

Sorry can you explain what you mean by day half domiciles?
If you mean the day domiciles of the planets then can you explain the diagram which has Mars with Scorpio, Mercury with Virgo, and Saturn with Capricorn? You obviously do not mean the diurnal hemisphere of the zodiac either so what exactly are you referring to here because I cannot understand it.

Note that each domicile is opposite its normal sign in the zodiac across the circle. (not on the diagonal as the inner sign circle):

I'm afraid I do not know what you mean here either.

Each domicile is opposite its "normal sign of the zodiac" - what does that mean, its normal sign of the zodiac. The examples you give do not make any sense to me.

You say:
"Venus with Libra (across from Aries) "

But Venus is across from Scorpio (inner wheel) and Virgo (outer wheel)

I cannot follow what you mean here at all.

Once the day signs of the traditional planets are aligned, it's a simple matter to fill in the remaining signs. In this scheme the domiciles of the new planets are all in the lunar half of the zodiac:

Erm, okay, but why are they all in the lunar half of the zodiac? It cannot be because of your earlier statement about human consciousness because that paragraph promised us a rationale in this section. So far none is given, it is just assumed that this must take place in the lunar half.

Uranus with Aquarius (exaltation in Scorpio)
Neptune with Pisces (exaltation in Gemini)
Pluto with Aries (exaltation in Sagittarius)

Can you explain where you got this association of domicile from? Is it from the persian text you mentioned earlier? If so Uranus is not used - another planet, which you arbitrarily decide is "uranus-like" is used.

Hi Theresa
Thanks for posting this; I found it very interesting, and it was good to have the reminder about that passage in Early Sages. What you are presenting takes a lot of thinking about, more than I can do right now, but I think that there is something here - in the ancient association of gods and signs, that does deserve our attention - and does need people like you to raise focus on it, and consider how it might have practical application. Lately I've been feeling very enthused about learning more about the Persian-Zorastrian basis of ancient astrology; I am sure its relevance is a great deal more significant than most of us realise. If I had time (which I don't) this is where I'd be investing my research energies right now
Have you had chance to check how the gods listed in the Zoroastrian passage compare with those referred to by Manilius?

Paul wrote:Therese do you have a source which states that this is how the solar and lunar hemispheres of the zodiac were understood?

I've noticed various traditional authors talk about this distinction, and to the fact that having the Sun and Moon in these associated halves of the zodiac gives them a state of dignity equivalent to being in their own terms. I haven't seen much employment of this principle in practice though, and it doesn't seem to be referred to in the Zoroastrian passage (unless I've missed something by reading too quickly). However, Ptolemy's remark "they assumed the semi-circle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar ..." suggests that it was an ancient principle.
Paul if you follow this link, and go to footnote 295 on the second page of the file (p.71), there are references there to discussion of the principle by Ptolemy, Alcabitius and Bonatti:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pdf/CA_pages_69_86.pdf

Deb wrote:I've noticed various traditional authors talk about this distinction, and to the fact that having the Sun and Moon in these associated halves of the zodiac gives them a state of dignity equivalent to being in their own terms. I haven't seen much employment of this principle in practice though, and it doesn't seem to be referred to in the Zoroastrian passage (unless I've missed something by reading too quickly). However, Ptolemy's remark "they assumed the semi-circle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar ..." suggests that it was an ancient principle.
Paul if you follow this link, and go to footnote 295 on the second page of the file (p.71), there are references there to discussion of the principle by Ptolemy, Alcabitius and Bonatti:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/pdf/CA_pages_69_86.pdf

Hi Deb

I need to be more clear about which part I'm questioning. I am not questioning that there is a solar hemisphere (Leo-Capricorn) and a lunar hemisphere (Aquarius-Cancer) but rather one particular interpretive use of those hemispheres within the tradition, namely that the solar hemisphere represents "one's duty to society" and the lunar hemisphere represents "individual growth" without the "demands and obligations of society". This is the part I am putting a question mark over.

I think it's an important part of Therese's theory here because later when referring to the chart, there is an automatic assumption made that the outer planets connect to the lunar hemisphere and this assumption does not appear to be backed up anywhere, unless of course the part I highlighted was it - that the outers relate to human consciousness which Therese links to individual growth and hence the lunar sphere. I am struggling to follow this chain of logic, so I thought it best to start at the beginning, with the reference to the lunar sphere as representing individual growth without the demands of society. Later in my reply I then question the outer planets and their association here.

I was very interested in that passage linking gods with signs - but this does not appear to be the main focus of Therese's argument, though I am still not quite sure in what way the chart-table has been constructed or what the logic was that is the foundation of it to know for sure.

I see. Sorry if I misunderstood. I don't think the part you've put the question mark over is going to be traditionally supported, and assume that's part of Therese's own take on the matter. I know that what Therese is explaining is unlikely to change my own understanding and practice of the rulership scheme, but find the discussion interesting anyway, as an individual exploration of something that seldom gets attention.

(The experience of being at several one-track conferences; where you are obliged to listen to talks given from unusual personal perspectives and on topics you wouldn't normally take an interest in, has shown me that freely shared views that demand no obedience can be very valuable, and nuggets of gold often appear in unexpected places.)

Deb and Paul, thank you very much for your interest and replies. I'll reply to Deb's posts first since she answered some of Paul's questions.

Deb wrote:
What you are presenting takes a lot of thinking about, more than I can do right now, but I think that there is something here - in the ancient association of gods and signs, that does deserve our attention - and does need people like you to raise focus on it, and consider how it might have practical application.

I do believe that the mythology of the gods themselves is evident in signs of the zodiac, and I hope to write a post on this. Ah time, where hast thou gone??!!

Have you had chance to check how the gods listed in the Zoroastrian passage compare with those referred to by Manilius

No, but I'll check out Manilius before posting my thoughts and research on the gods and signs. Thanks for the reminder. I also have Ken Gilman's "Twelve Gods and Seven Planets" on my desk to review. Doesn't it seem like the more we work with astrology, the more there is to learn and study?! Sometimes I feel that astrology is this huge vista, and I'm only standing at the entrance looking into the distance.

Paul wrote:
I am not questioning that there is a solar hemisphere (Leo-Capricorn) and a lunar hemisphere (Aquarius-Cancer) but rather one particular interpretive use of those hemispheres within the tradition, namely that the solar hemisphere represents "one's duty to society" and the lunar hemisphere represents "individual growth" without the "demands and obligations of society". This is the part I am putting a question mark over.

Deb replied:
I don't think the part you've put the question mark over is going to be traditionally supported, and assume that's part of Therese's own take on the matter. I know that what Therese is explaining is unlikely to change my own understanding and practice of the rulership scheme, but find the discussion interesting anyway, as an individual exploration of something that seldom gets attention.

That's correct, Deb. This is my historical perspective, though I believe it can be backed up a review of historical events.

I do have Uranus opposite Mercury, so of course I'm going to come up with ideas that are innovative and go against the common grain of thinking. However, this doesn't qualify those ideas as necessarily correct! Only that certain perspectives are new and perhaps will expand general understanding in the long run. I've done a lot of research on the connection of gods to the zodiac signs, and I see how these work in relation to the zodiac question. So I'll try to post a summary within a few days.

Paul wrote:

Therese wrote:
In the tropical zodiac Aries is seen as almost purely Martian in its energy. In the sidereal zodiac it's Scorpio (which has the characteristics of tropical Sagittarius) which is the primary sign of Mars.

Paul replied:
I'm afraid I don't agree at that in the Tropical zodiac Aries is seen as purely Martian in its energy. Can you provide a source from the tradition which specifies something of this nature that Aries is more 'mars-connected' than Scorpio and that this is unique to the Tropical Zodiac in a way that is impossible or not employed in the Sidereal?

I was mainly referring to what contemporary tropical authors say about Aries. In the tradition, Scorpio is seen as more Martian as Scorpio is the primary domicile of that planet. So (as I see it), sidereal Scorpio expresses the outgoing and restless energy of Mars whereas Aries does not.

If a scheme requires that all the zodiac signs need to be adjusted if you wish to employ the sidereal zodiac then really all you are doing is employing the tropical zodiac and renaming it - or merging the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. This is not something that sidereal astrologers tend to suggest however.

There are various views on the sidereal signs. As I see it, each degree or area of the ecliptic has particular expressions and energy, and it's a mute point whether these expressions might be changed from one zodiac to another. Let's just go by observation: "Area A has this type of expression as indicated by....birth charts A, B and C...." So when I discuss a sidereal sign I'm merely noting how that sign area manifests based on observation by tropical astrologers. Any one degree or zodiacal area cannot have two conflicting interpretations based on the name of a sign. This very important concept seems to have eluded many astrologers.

If you theory predicates that the scheme only works with the sidereal zodiac, but actually turns out to not be the sidereal zodiac, but instead a new sidereal zodiac of your own making, then really you're inventing the whole scheme to begin with.

I suppose you mean a new interpretation of the sidereal zodiac? Am I not allowed to introduce ideas different from what others have decided? Surely more than 40 years of astrological study have qulified me to introduce some innovative ideas?

Therese wrote:
The outer ring planets are the zodiac day half domiciles or home signs of the exalted planets.

Paul replied:
Sorry can you explain what you mean by day half domiciles?
If you mean the day domiciles of the planets then can you explain the diagram which has Mars with Scorpio, Mercury with Virgo, and Saturn with Capricorn? You obviously do not mean the diurnal hemisphere of the zodiac either so what exactly are you referring to here because I cannot understand it.

That should have read "the outer ring signs"...(I've changed it). Scorpio, Virgo, and Capricorn all belong to the solar or day half of the zodiac: (Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Saggitarius, Capricorn)

You say:
"Venus with Libra (across from Aries) "
But Venus is across from Scorpio (inner wheel) and Virgo (outer wheel)

I cannot follow what you mean here at all.

I am talking about signs in the outer wheel here. The horizontal lines are drawn to show the link between outer ring signs. Each area of the diagram is linked by horizontal lines. Let your eye go from the Libra-Venus-Pisces sector across to the Sag-Pluto-Aries sector.

Erm, okay, but why are they all in the lunar half of the zodiac? It cannot be because of your earlier statement about human consciousness because that paragraph promised us a rationale in this section. So far none is given, it is just assumed that this must take place in the lunar half.

The rationale is the way the diagram falls into place linking domicile and exaltation lords. There is no way to shift the diagram to make such a symmetrical picture. The pattern is quite striking, actually!

Can you explain where you got this association of domicile from? Is it from the Persian text you mentioned earlier? If so Uranus is not used - another planet, which you arbitrarily decide is "uranus-like" is used.

Pluto-Aries and Neptune-Pisces are referred to in the Persian text. Uranus naturally falls into place with Aquarius as the diagram is laid out. Mythology has decided the characteristics of Artimis. Uranus is the most ancient and far removed from humanity of all the gods, and was disposed early on by Saturn. Thus, Uranus too, can be seen as remote, similar to Artimis and the way she chose to live.

Hi Therese

I understand better about what the chart is trying to depict now. A couple of comments.

I was mainly referring to what contemporary tropical authors say about Aries. In the tradition, Scorpio is seen as more Martian as Scorpio is the primary domicile of that planet. So (as I see it), sidereal Scorpio expresses the outgoing and restless energy of Mars whereas Aries does not.

Thanks Therese, I think it is really important that we keep in mind the context of our judgements, in this case you are predicating that a system can only work with the sidereal zodiac, and the logic you are employing to demonstrate this is that some modern astrologers prefer Aries for Mars than they do Scorpio. But of course really that has nothing to do with the actual zodiac itself. There is nothing inherent about the tropical or the sidereal zodiac that precludes one or the other.
I might, for example, rephrase your quote as saying "so (as I see it), traditional tropical Scorpio expresses the outgoing and restless energy of Mars whereas Aries does not". The focus is not so much on anything inherently tropical or anything inherently sidereal, but instead on a particular paradigm employed by some modern astrologers, based on their "affinity = rulership" idea. Really what you are against is that modern western affinity scheme - not a particular zodiac.

So when I discuss a sidereal sign I'm merely noting how that sign area manifests based on observation by tropical astrologers. Any one degree or zodiacal area cannot have two conflicting interpretations based on the name of a sign. This very important concept seems to have eluded many astrologers.

Right, but isn't this a bit like comparing apples and oranges - examining sidereal signs based on what tropical astrologers say about them? The idea that one particular area of the zodiac cannot have more than one thing said about it presupposes a number of ideas:
1) that both the tropical and sidereal are equally valid
2) that both tropical and sidereal astrologers describe the signs in the same way, and that they haven't, for example, changed in time in line with precesion

Obviously if you feel that both of these points are true then the other way of looking at this is that actually it deliberately includes both zodiacs, and precludes neither of them. So it does not make sense to suggest that the scheme only works sidereally - especially when the point is that you examine what tropical astrologers say etc.

I suppose you mean a new interpretation of the sidereal zodiac? Am I not allowed to introduce ideas different from what others have decided? Surely more than 40 years of astrological study have qulified me to introduce some innovative ideas?

You are of course, we're all free to use astrology as we see fit, however we need to also be clear on terminology when nomenclature is broadly used. The sidereal zodiac means a particular thing to most people, and if we re-arrange what that means it can be confusing to communicate. You say that this only works with the sidereal zodiac, but really what you mean is one particular brand of the sidereal zodiac, with a plethora of new and updated sign interpretations. It is not the sidereal zodiac that everyone else is necesasrily using, but rather it is a hybrid zodiac of the tropical and sidereal placements, and you may as well call it tropical with sidereal mixed in, or sidereal with tropical mixed in. Either way calling something which uses tropical interpretations as sidereal is probably going to create confusion.

This idea that the scheme you set out does not or could not work with the tropical zodiac, which is what you imply, is one of the two major issues I have with the logic you've put forth here, because nothing about any of this actually necessitates HOW the zodiac is calculated, and instead is purely about what interpretations you may prefer to apply to the zodiac. In other words there is no logic which is either inherently tropical or sidereal about the scheme.


The other focus I have is on the wheel itself. Actually none of the above seem to be a foundation for how this wheel is constructed, so to a large extent all of this stuff with the sidereal zodiac, the tropical zodiac, or whether Mars should be more associated with Scorpio or Aries is largely a red herring. The wheel that you provide doesn't actually relate back to any of this. It just takes a zodiac, any zodiac, and connects domiciles and exaltations.

That should have read "the outer ring signs"...(I've changed it). Scorpio, Virgo, and Capricorn all belong to the solar or day half of the zodiac: (Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Saggitarius, Capricorn)

Thank you Therese, I wasn't following how these signs were connected as day places. I see you mean the solar hemisphere of the zodiac.

Let your eye go from the Libra-Venus-Pisces sector across to the Sag-Pluto-Aries sector.

I understand now Therese! Thank you, I could not follow what was happening with these lines or what the connection was.

Really what we see is that if we reflect along the axis of the fixed signs, we get a connection between domicile and exaltation rulership scheme. That really is interesting!

So I see what you mean now, if you discover a domicile place for a planet, you can figure out its exaltation using this scheme. That really is compelling.

Actually, for me, that is more interesting than anything relating to the assignation of the outer planets - for me we are still left assigning them somewhat arbitrarily, or based upon myth.

Actually if we take your scheme and apply the same kind of logic that the traditional planets are assigned with we get an interesting pattern.

We assign Uranus to Aquarius, not because of myth or because of a reference in a persian text, but due to astronomy of being the planet next furthest out in the sequence. As the outer planets have now moved into the lunar hemisphere, we can use that hemisphere as the basis for this approach. It would have nothing to do with preference for deciding that the lunar hemisphere is more to do with personal growth and connecting the outers to it somehow, and rests just upon the necessity of where the astronomy places it.

Really interesting circle Therese! I obviously disagree with the logic you are employing to show why the planets go where they do - I think sticking with the astronomy of following the order of the traditional planets is more compelling, and ignoring arguments about sidereal and tropical zodiacs altogether as well as the old persian text (interesting though it is). We do not actually need any of this. We just need to know the logic for the traditional domicile scheme.

The question then is why does reflecting upon the fixed signs provide this pattern. I wonder if it has anything to do with the sidereal-tropical argument from another perspective, an older one in which the equinox was in sidereal taurus.


Thank you for taking the time to reply to me!

Paul wrote:

The wheel that you provide doesn't actually relate back to any of this. It just takes a zodiac, any zodiac, and connects domiciles and exaltations.

I'm taking this quote out of context because that's an important point and very true: The diagram connects domiciles and exaltations, and has no special relationship to any zodiac.

I was thinking of Pluto and Aries when I mentioned the zodiac. In my experience Garth Allen (Donald Bradley) was correct when he spoke of a Pluto person as a loner who was almost anti-social. But tropical Aries is outgoing and friendly, so doesn't seem a good match for Pluto.

If Pluto tends to be a loner, then the planet is also a misfit for Scorpio. Zip Dobyns writes about tropical Scorpio: "It is a water sign and thus naturally driven by the need for fusion with another..." (Finding the Person in the Horoscope, 1973, p. 30)

Anyway, that is Zip Dobyns, but I've never been drawn to her approach to astrology. I suppose my point is that Pluto may not be a good match for Scorpio in either zodiac.

Now responding to the remainder of your post, Paul:

Paul wrote:

I might, for example, rephrase your quote as saying "so (as I see it), traditional tropical Scorpio expresses the outgoing and restless energy of Mars whereas Aries does not". The focus is not so much on anything inherently tropical or anything inherently sidereal, but instead on a particular paradigm employed by some modern astrologers, based on their "affinity = rulership" idea. Really what you are against is that modern western affinity scheme - not a particular zodiac.

Actually, I'm not against anything. I'm only trying to match observed sign behavior to domicile and exalted planets. I feel the planetary affinity in the tropical zodiac has sometimes gone into the background in favor of the three qualities and four elements.

For example, it's very easy to give Mercury's characteristics to tropical Gemini, but a number of astrologers are suggesting another planetary ruler for Virgo as that sign isn't seen as so Mercurial. But that is strange since traditional astrology gives a double rulership of Mercury to Virgo: domicile and sign of exaltation.

Another example is "fixed" Taurus. But neither the domicile lord Venus nor the exalted planet (Moon) is fixed or stubborn. So the sign's fixidity apparently overrides Venus and lunar traits.

Therese wrote;
So when I discuss a sidereal sign I'm merely noting how that sign area manifests based on observation by tropical astrologers. Any one degree or zodiacal area cannot have two conflicting interpretations based on the name of a sign. This very important concept seems to have eluded many astrologers.

Paul replied:
Right, but isn't this a bit like comparing apples and oranges - examining sidereal signs based on what tropical astrologers say about them?

I don't think so. I see the observations of tropical astrologers as a valuable gift to astrology that has helped me at least better understand sidereal signs. Each historical age or nation has helped to complete the astrological picture. India has preserved sidereal calculations, but has never bothered to observe the actual behavior of signs.

Beginning with Alan Leo, the west has begun to notice sign traits. The problem is that there is too much theory mixed in with the actual observation of behavior in the textbooks. The perennial question is whether those traits belong to tropical or sidereal signs. Well, they apply to both, but the signs have different names!

The sidereal zodiac means a particular thing to most people...

I don't think that's necesssarily true. Especially in the west sidereal sign characteristics have never been set in place. All we have are individual interpretations from different astrologers. This is different than the tropical picture where there is a general consensus as to sign meanings. India doesn't talk about the traits of signs (except where modern authors have copied a number of tropical sign traits), and the western sidereal school has tended to ignore the signs in place of planet angularity and cyclic charts.

Really what we see is that if we reflect along the axis of the fixed signs, we get a connection between domicile and exaltation rulership scheme. That really is interesting!

Yes, the domicile/exaltation arrangement is intriguing.

So I see what you mean now, if you discover a domicile place for a planet, you can figure out its exaltation using this scheme. That really is compelling.

Now wouldn't it be interesting if it could be applied in practice and actually work?

Actually if we take your scheme and apply the same kind of logic that the traditional planets are assigned with we get an interesting pattern.

We assign Uranus to Aquarius, not because of myth or because of a reference in a persian text, but due to astronomy of being the planet next furthest out in the sequence. As the outer planets have now moved into the lunar hemisphere, we can use that hemisphere as the basis for this approach. It would have nothing to do with preference for deciding that the lunar hemisphere is more to do with personal growth and connecting the outers to it somehow, and rests just upon the necessity of where the astronomy places it.

That's correct. Mythology and historical context don't necessarily apply as the diagram has nothing to do with the actual application of the planetary arrangement.

I think sticking with the astronomy of following the order of the traditional planets is more compelling, and ignoring arguments about sidereal and tropical zodiacs altogether as well as the old Persian text (interesting though it is). We do not actually need any of this. We just need to know the logic for the traditional domicile scheme.

I've been following the astronomy for many years: Saturn--Capricorn; Uranus--Aquarius; Neptune--Pisces; Pluto--Aries.

The question then is why does reflecting upon the fixed signs provide this pattern. I wonder if it has anything to do with the sidereal-tropical argument from another perspective, an older one in which the equinox was in sidereal Taurus.

There has always been special symbolism applied to the four fixed signs. It's everywhere: in various metaphysical schools, in tarot card art, even in the bible.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to me!

I'm always pleased when anyone replies to posts on the sidereal forum. We are only a small part of Skyscript.