PDA

View Full Version : Should Saturn rule Leo in Oz?


Minderwiz
21-02-2004, 05:47
In another thread I've mentioned the book The Sun and The Aspects by Maurice McCann. In the book he explores a number of basic Astrological ideas. One of these is the rulership of the signs.

McCann bases his argument on Ptolemy's original system of rulership (where Saturn also rules Aquarius, Mars also rules Scorpio, Jupiter also rules Pisces). McCann points out that Ptolmey lived in Alexandria, about 31 degrees North). McCann points out that in setting up his rulerships, Ptolemy acknowledges that in the Summer months the Sun in Cancer and Leo is closer to 'our zenith and therefore most productive of heat and warmth'- 'our' meaning the Zenith in Alexandria. He gave the Sun rulership of Leo because Leo is a masculine sign. The next most important planet, the Moon, is given the rulership of Cancer, a feminine sign.

The rulerships are therefore based on the Sun's furthest declination North (actually just over 23 degrees). McCann then ponders what might have happened if Ptolmey had lived in Sydney, Australia (just over 33 degrees South) - there the Sun's at it's hotest when in Capricorn and Aquarius. So on that basis Ptolemy would have given the Sun rulership over Aquarius (masculine) and the Moon rulership over Capricorn (feminine).

The remaining planets are given rulership through a combination of aspect and distance from the Sun. In the North, Saturn the most distant (for Ptolemy) is given rulership over Aquarius by opposition to the Sun in Leo and is given rulership over Capricorn by opposition to the Moon in Cancer.

Jupiter, the next planet in gets rulership of Sagittarius by trine from the Sun in Leo and rulership of Pisces by trine from the Moon in Cancer. Likewise, Mars rules Scorpio by square to the Sun in Leo and Aries by square to the Moon in Cancer. Venus rules Taurus and Libra by sextile to the luminaries and Mercury the remaining planet gets rulership of Gemini and Virgo the remaining signs. As Ptolemy had run out of major aspects Mercury rules almost by default, although it's possible to swap the system a little, as Virgo is sextile to Cancer and Gemini sextile to Leo.

If this system is transferred to the Southern hemisphere, McCann argues that Ptolemy would have given Saturn rulership of Leo and Cancer, Jupiter would rule Gemini and Virgo, Mars would rule Libra and Taurus and so on.

The question posed, is really Should the rulerships be reversed for the South?

Minderwiz
22-02-2004, 00:39
My own personal feeling is that I would be uncomfortable reversing the rulerships.

I'm sure this is partly out of habit but also there is something appropriate about the Sun ruling Leo a Fire sign - rather than the more etherial Aquarius.

But then maybe Leo is a Fire sign because the Sun achieves it's furthest North declination in that sign - after all Astrology is more or less a Northern hemisphere invention :)

jmd
22-02-2004, 14:53
You pose an interesting question, Minderwiz, and one which many of us living in the Southern Hemisphere have in various ways sought to address...

About 6 years ago, I wrote a little book (still sitting in a draw somewhere - but at least that book has been read through by a number of people and, except for some of the illustrations/diagrammes, is otherwise basically ready!) on what I described as a 'Natural House System'. Though it does not specifically address inversing Rulership of signs, it does so by implication. I do find it interesting that many locally born Leos have checks no Leos are looking this way seemingly more 'standard' Aquarian traits (& vice versa) - likewise Taureans and Scorpios (to the relief of some Scorpios I didn't really mean this if you're a Scorpio, honest :halo:).

A question which needs to be asked is whether the constellations are more like indicators (ie, they are signs which point to a seasonal aspect), or whether the energies actually emanate from the regions.

In terms of the precession of the equinox, the latter view does not pose a problem (even for the Tropical Astrologer), for it could be argued (as I have also mentioned elsewhere and much earlier in this Forum) that the energies which stream through the signs spiral in, whereas our line of sight is, by comparison, 'straight' (for the purposes of this post, that light weaves itself in curved paths as it passes massive centres of gravitational forces is not important).

With the former view, however, it does have a couple of important implications. The first is that if the signs are mere 'fingers' pointing to the (tropical) 'sign', then why are these not considered reversed when altering hemisphere? (never mind the additional problems encountered in especially tropical regions for this view). If one does inverse the signs (eg, Aries as the first 30 degrees following the local vernal equinox - whether it be the one in March or September), then the rulership does change.

Personally, I tend to view the latter, even though the rare times I have cast charts for others I tend to opt for a standard Placidus chart (or Koch on even rarer occasions).

Still, the questions are not only important, but may lead us to revise the principal ways of chart-casting...

...definitely a book up my alley :)

TemperanceAngel
22-02-2004, 15:33
Being a Sothern Hemisphere born Cancer cusp Leo with an Aquarian husband I find this all very interesting. :) XTAX

Minderwiz
22-02-2004, 23:26
Thanks for your comments

As far as I can tell, McCann bases his argument purely on the declination of the Sun and makes no reference to the properties or nature of the signs changeing. Indeed he specifically says that these properties remain the same. So someone born under Aries would still have Arien traits (presuming Aries is dominant in the chart) but would be ruled by Venus. They wouldn't turn into nice Librans or Taureans.

As the sun's declination 'rules' the system, the precession of the Equninoxes becomes largely irrelevant. The Spring Equinox is when the Sun reaches a declination of 0 degrees. In the Northern hemisphere this would be associated with the Sun moving from South to North, in the Southern hemisphere the movement would be the otherway around. It doesn't matter, for this purpose, whether this occurs when the Sun is in Taurus, Aries, or Pisces!

Again, personally, I might be tempted to look at the properties of the signs if the system is reveresed - if Aquarius is a Summer sign then it should have Summer properties - it should be Hot and Dry, not Hot and Wet :)

TemperanceAngel
23-02-2004, 08:17
Just to add, myself I have the Leo traits and my husband, he has the Aquarian traits and not the other way around. It's very, very obvious with us as well....
So although I find this interesting, I don't think I really agree ;) XTAX

Minderwiz
24-02-2004, 02:14
Of course, strictly speaking rulership is not affinity - so its quite possible to be fully Aquarian and ruled by the Sun in the Southern hemisphere :) :)

TemperanceAngel
24-02-2004, 08:47
Originally posted by Minderwiz
Of course, strictly speaking rulership is not affinity - so its quite possible to be fully Aquarian and ruled by the Sun in the Southern hemisphere :) :)
Good point, Minderwiz! XTAX

sapienza
16-08-2009, 22:24
About 6 years ago, I wrote a little book (still sitting in a draw somewhere - but at least that book has been read through by a number of people and, except for some of the illustrations/diagrammes, is otherwise basically ready!) on what I described as a 'Natural House System'. Though it does not specifically address inversing Rulership of signs, it does so by implication. I do find it interesting that many locally born Leos have checks no Leos are looking this way seemingly more 'standard' Aquarian traits (& vice versa) - likewise Taureans and Scorpios (to the relief of some Scorpios I didn't really mean this if you're a Scorpio, honest :halo:).

Hi jmd....just wondering if that little book is still sitting in a drawer somewhere or if it's out there available for people to read? This topic is something that has been occupying my thoughts of late and so I'm on the hunt for information :)

Minderwiz
16-08-2009, 22:51
I'd second that!!!

The hemisphere difference is something that Astrology does not really address well enough.

One possibility would be to use the sidereal zodiac which is 'season free'. However my belief is that the original rulerships, whilst being established using a sidereal zodiac, were still the product of a Northern Hemisphere approach and at a time when the Winter solstice did indeed occur in Capricorn in the North and the Vernal equinox occured in Aries, in the North.

Bernice
16-08-2009, 23:15
Hooray! SH astrology, back on track.

I'm inclined to believe it's a seasonal thing that needs addressing. The astronomical vernal eqx is a planet-wide event, so we cannot really ignore it. But (as has already been said) if different areas of the planet experience it differently - switched spring/autumn/winter/summer - then a better framework needs to be created. Be nice if the solution turned out to be a simple switching of 'meanings' given to the signs....

Bee :)

dadsnook2000
17-08-2009, 06:02
A few years ago I was asked a question along these lines as to if the sign on the Ascendant would reverse as we move from the northern to the southern hemisphere. Apparently this idea was spawned by an old house-calculation formula where reversals are done for the southern hemisphere.

As an answer, I calculated the rising sign for the MC as it was a given moment in Japan, at that same moment and longitude on islands south of there, and again at that same moment and longitude in Australia ---- I think this was the case, although the Japan location might have been somewhere else.

In any case, the rising sign stays the same, north or south of the equator, with only the degree varying a bit due to latitude distortion. So, it would seem that the mathematically derived zodiac, if it could be seen, is somewhat line-of-sight or directional in its nature. For me, it has always been defined by declination of the Sun, which is an offshoot of the precession-mechanics due to our Earth's wobble as it orbits the Sun. If the Tropical signs are based/related to the Seasons, then they lose validity in the Southern Hemisphere. If they have some other basis-in-fact, they may be valid. I don't use them, but I am interested in the discussion. Dave

Minderwiz
17-08-2009, 06:59
Dave, seeing your reply reminded me of your comment on Vedic signs not having the same meanings as in modern Astrology. In particular the Leo/Jung stuff is of course missing and the sidereal zodiac is still use (in some form).

It might be interesting to see if Vedic Astrology works better in the Southern Hemisphere than Western Astrology, even though that too is Northern Hemisphere derived.

sapienza
17-08-2009, 09:53
[QUPTE-Minderwiz]One possibility would be to use the sidereal zodiac which is 'season free'. [/quote]

Dave, seeing your reply reminded me of your comment on Vedic signs not having the same meanings as in modern Astrology.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is sidereal astrology 'season free'? Is this just because the signs are not linked to fixed times of the year?

I understand what Dave has said about the Ascendant not changing. I think it's more to do with the seasonal associations of the zodiac. Ie. Leo being mid summer in the North and mid winter in the South. Does this matter? I've tried playing around with my own chart....swapping all the signs to their opposites and seeing if it 'fits' better. To be honest, I'm not sure it does.

Obviously the signs have their polarities, or opposites, which are generally two sides of the same coin. I just wonder if in the Southern hemisphere we express the energies slightly differently as we are at the opposite 'pole' of the pair of signs, if that makes sense.

In the Northern hemisphere the change from winter to spring spans the signs Pisces, Aries and Taurus which can be used to explain what is happening seasonally, but similarly, if we look at Virgo, Libra and Scorpio we can explain the spring over here, well, I can anyway :)

So, I wonder, just how much do the seasonal attributions actually factor in? When the signs were first 'defined' were they designed around the seasons, or did we just make the seasons fit the signs?

Not sure if I'm making any sense at all, so sorry if I'm not.

Minderwiz
18-08-2009, 07:59
Well there's a great debate around the sidereal/tropical issue and I don't think my knowledge is enough to do it justice. However, a brief, and thereofore very rough, account would go something like this:

It depends what you are using the zodiac for. There's a view that the ancients used it for several purposes, such as Astronomical measurement, predicting the oncome of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter, Creating and keeping a calendar. The former can probably best be done using a sidereal zodiac (but that's hotly debated) the latter two are best (same qualification) done using a knowledge of the tropical cycle. It apears that the Babylonians had at least reasonbly strong strong memories of the Spring Equinox occuring in the Pleiades (in the constllation of Taurus)

There's disputes about when the first Tropical horoscopes were cast, but Ptolemy was probably the greatest influence on the tropical zodiac being adopted in the West. This was more by historical accident than the victory of one argument over another. In his day and for the rest of the Classical period it's almost certain that Astrologers continued to use the sidereal zodiac, it just so happens that this was increasingly (for them) in line with the tropical zodiac. They didn't distinguish between them. The fracturing of Western Europe from it's knowledge base at the end of the Classical period left Ptolemy as one of the few sources in Latin and his zodiac was increasingly used and the sidereal one fell by the wayside (except in India where it continued and continues to be the norm).

Now there was a seasonal component to the sidereal zodiac but there's a strong argument that that was because of the conincidence of tropical and sidereal zodiac in Hellenistic times. Whether that would have survived if the West had followed India down the sidereal road is a moot question.

However much is speculation, how Ancient Astrologers would have responded to Southern Hemisphere issues is impossible to answer

For more information on the arguments see:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sidereal.html

Remember to read both articles !!

dadsnook2000
18-08-2009, 13:07
The Tropical zodiac is purely "seasonal" because the date of the Aries Point being reached automatically marks the start of the spring season and the Sun's gaining daily altitude and shedding more light at a more direct angle. Sidereal zodiac placement is fixed in the stars and the Earth's tilt/declination/seasonal effects change over a 25,000 year cycle. While our individual lives on Earth are too short to note any change relative to this very long cycle, technically the Sidereal zodiac is not seasonal-related.

The Tropical zodiac exists only on the Earth's surface, it has no validity or exposure any where else. I'm not sure where the Sidereal zodiac exists, only that we mathematically move through its conceptual construction and can use it as a positional or measuring tool. Where its influence comes from, through what agent it influences us (if it does), and on what basis we would define it and give it a word-description is all beyond me. I have not yet heard anyone else ever clearly state the underlying facts or basis of the Sidereal zodiac other than its original concepts and placement in the sky relative to the constellations and/or its current concept and mathematical construction. Dave

Minderwiz
18-08-2009, 19:18
Yes, I totally agree with that (subject to my abject knowledge of Vedic Astrology). Indeed even the sidereal zodiac is a geocentric concept, depending on the plane of planetary orbits. There's no reason to suppose, that even if there was an inhabited planet orbiting a nearby star, that the plane of planetary rotation lined up with our sidereal zodiac.

It depends on what you are trying to use Astrology for. The great use has been prediction of seasonal change and establishing a calendar and to a lesser extent divination. As a matter of historical record, much of the development for calendar and divination have occurred in the epoch when Aries was on the Spring Equinox (in the North) and,as Dave points out, the life of man is but a drop in the ocean of even an Astrological Age, let alone a Great Age. The use of the zodiac, both for measuring, for calendar and for divination developed in the Age of Aries and very few Astrologers recognised that this would give way to the Age of Pisces, etc. Our sign interpretation is for better or worse rooted in the conditions at the time of it's development but, in principle I don't see why the Tropical side cannot be separated from the divination side by using different zodiacs. Actully doing that however may be an incredibly difficult task, to put it mildly.