Y'all knew I was gonna come post, right?
Le Fanu said:
Looking at your diagram, it seems that 5 star signs, i.e Aries and Aquarius, don´t have planets. Am I right in this?
Ack! No. The chart on that page is not reflective of even the CONTENT of that page. If you read the text, it explains that only the Sun and Moon rule one sign each and that the other planets rule 2 each. The questions you're asking are about
essential dignity. Of the 3 links Cardlady provided above only Renaissance astrology uses traditional dignities (like the GD system) the first two are modern sunsign astrology sites... so contain "improvements" that don't always have analogs to the GD decks. Still, the Renaissance Astrology sites is one of my faves. Chris Warnock is terrific.
Secondarily. Hellenistic astrology is a very specific branch of traditional astrology that is absorbed into the Western magical tradition and evolves. The modern attributions of Uranus and Neptune and Pluto are all POST-sunsign astrology. Ergo they have nothing to do with the Golden Dawn material. But, sorry cardlady, it was not the case that several signs were just rulerless for thousands of years until astronomy "caught up." Saturn is the last planet visible to the naked eye and for our purposes is the final planet in the Golden Dawn system. Sun sign astrology is next to worthless when looking at Astrology in the Golden Dawn decks: it will teach you the symbols and a few terms and not much else.
Le Fanu said:
Do these attributions change? Or are they permanent fixtures?
No. The essential dignities have not changed for several thousand years. The dignities are the dignities. But, obviously, the interpretation of those dignities shifts and different folks introduce subtle variations (decan system, Arabic parts, mundane rulerships, etc). About 100 years ago a theosophical astrologer named Alan Leo lobotomized astrology to make it quick-n-easy for the dingdongs and produced what we think of as modern sunsign astrology: lots of self-help twaddle and little practical content. Lots of affirmations, little prediction. This is what 90% of the world thinks of as astrology, which is a little bit like thinking of all Christians as clinic-bombing xenophobic born-agains.
Le Fanu said:
I pounced on the link to exaltations to see what they are and I see that each planet has an astrological sign "in" it (whatever that means) i.e Venus in Libra. But thinking of the Thoth (Im remembering a diagram in Duquettes´s book) am I right in thinking that the star signs have different planets "in" them which is how the qualities change, i.e Venus isn´t always "in" Libra, it might, one day, have Saturn "in" it which would have different effects?
(this is embarrassing!
)
Nothing to be embarassed about, but let's start from itch...
Don't start by thinking of the Signs... that is the trap of modern astrology. The Zodiac is geography. It's a path of the sun through artificial bands of 30 degrees each. At NO TIME has the zodiac ever matched up with constellations. Aries is about 1/12th the size of Scorpio. Always has been. The constellations are a
mnemonic, not a map. Remember, books were rare and expensive until VERY recently. People memorized things.
So for your purposes, the important thing is that there are 7 planets (
planetes means "wanderer") that produce certain effects. And those effects are modified when they are in certain areas of the celestial terrain. In the same way that a flamethrower in an oil field produces a different effect than a flamethrower in the Pacific Ocean. The PLANETS produce the effect. The signs modify them. The planets also affect each other within that terrain for ill or good... So as you say, Venus in Libra produces a different effect that Saturn in Libra, although they are both strong in Libra (Saturn is exalted, Venus rules it). But Saturn and Venus produce very different effects: to start with, Venus is the lesser Benefic, and Saturn the greater Malefic.
The main thing I'll say is that if your "basic astrology primer" is based on Modern sunsign astrology it will confuse you pointlessly. If it uses the outer planets (Neptune, Uranus, Pluto), if it doesn't situate Death in the 8th house, if it favors afiirmation over prediction, then you're getting a highly skewed not superuseful take that has next to nothing to do with the astrological content used by the GD. You can probably get some of the basic ideas... but not many, and not well. You'd be better off reading the articles at Skyscript and Ben Dykes and Robert Zoller's sites. A natal astrology book is pretty much pointless unless you're always doing readings about new births.
The best book might be something on traditional elective or horary like Frawley's
Horary Textbook or Oliviia Barclay's
Horary Astrology Rediscovered... Horary is inherently predictive and specific and concrete.
I agree with Zoppo about the need for studying the actual Sky, but I think the bedrock texts of traditional astrology are insanely helpful to the study of GD material, and any esoterica actually. The constellations are not the Signs; that is obvious to anyone who has actually looked at them. We must always remember how much of astrology is based on memorized material and how few opportunities our ancestors had to see clearly and completely the celestial events concerned. It was a vast precise symbolic model that literally defined the way half of the world lived for thousands of years... It's worth studying, as you can imagine... and more entertaining than you might expect.
All this is by way of saying: Astrology is only as necessary as your desire for mastery. I wish I understood the GD astrology better, but the more I study the more I realize they used material that THEY didn't understand very well; they just lucked out by coopting a lot of ancient material they discovered in their libraries. Studying Astrology actively will change everything about the way you read and the results you get. Even if you don't study it consciously, using a GD deck means you're studying it passively. So it comes down to what you want... Do you want to watch a boat, ride in a boat, steer the boat, or build a boat?
sorry about that.