Should Saturn rule Leo in Oz?

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?

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

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

Being a Sothern Hemisphere born Cancer cusp Leo with an Aquarian husband I find this all very interesting. XTAX

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

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

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

Minderwiz said:

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

Click to expand...

Good point, Minderwiz! XTAX

jmd said:

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:).

Click to expand...

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

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.