PDA

View Full Version : The Case For Traditional Domicile Rulers of the Signs


Frank
01-08-2012, 08:59 PM
- The symmetry of the Luminaries and visible planets as they as they disperse among the signs, starting from the Sun/Moon - Leo/Cancer.

- Planets and Signs and Houses are not synonymous ( a repudiation of the "Astrological Alphabet")

- "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it" – assigning the "modern planets" to Domicile rulership was rush to judgment that was unneeded.

- If we use "modern planets" in the Domicile scheme, where do they fit in the other Essential Dignities?

Discuss.

sandstone
01-08-2012, 09:10 PM
hi frank
this is a good topic.. however putting it in the trad section while wanting to explore the role or not of the modern planets seems misplaced..

Frank
01-08-2012, 09:22 PM
The issue I was raising was - Can others contribute even more reasons to support traditional rulers?

JUPITERASC
01-08-2012, 09:25 PM
hi frank
this is a good topic.. however putting it in the trad section while wanting to explore the role or not of the modern planets seems misplaced..
Misplaced? For what reason?

(a) Since the idea of the Domicile Rulers of the Signs is Traditional in origin

(b) and given that the thread heading clearly states the discussion relates to "The Case For Traditional Domicile Rulers of the Signs"

(c) then placing the topic for discussion in the Traditional forum makes sense :smile:

sandstone
01-08-2012, 09:25 PM
i was drawn to this part of your post

"- If we use "modern planets" in the Domicile scheme, where do they fit in the other Essential Dignities? "

JUPITERASC
01-08-2012, 09:53 PM
The issue I was raising was - Can others contribute even more reasons to support traditional rulers?
By allocating Uranus the planet of upheaval and revolution to rulership of a fixed air sign, modern astrology breaks its own rules of planet=sign=house. How can fixity have affinity with upheaval and revolutionary change? :smile:

waybread
01-08-2012, 10:47 PM
Hi Frank-- I was 'brought up on" modern astrology, and I do think the modern sign rulers have merit. I just happen to think they work in chart interpretation, given my long and happy career as an amateur astrologer reading charts for people.

A year or so ago, I decided to look at the traditional rulers, as well; in terms of domiciles and accidental house cusp rulers (lords.) I think that they have value, as well.

So now I look at both.

The traditional domiciles are based on a kind of astrological "tree" or branching pattern that will be familiar to you, but possibly not to others. Starting with the sun-moon pair, and then with increasing temporal and orbital distance from them, we get:

sun=Leo///moon=Cancer
Mercury=Virgo///Gemini
Venus=Libra///Taurus
Mars=Scorpio///Aries
Jupiter=Sagittarius///Pisces
Saturn=Capricorn///Aquarius

This makes a tidy package, yet some of the sign pairs are incredibly different from one another. Sure we can look at triplicites, quadruplicites, and all the rest of it to explain why. But I think the modern planetary rulers also help explain why Aries doesn't operate like Scorpio; Sagittarius doesn't operate like Pisces, and Capricorn doesn't operate like Aquarius.

Of course there are limits to what one can do with the "outers." They just won't fit into traditional systems of terms, for example. No Bigs. The outers have a role that doesn't have to fit neatly into any and all delineations.

But I think they have real explanatory value in personality interpretation. So that's a pragmatic answer.

I couldn't agree more that "planets are not signs", consequently. But what "rush to judgement"? Even Pluto has been known to astrologers for over 80 years!

Frank
01-08-2012, 10:55 PM
Hi Frank-- I was 'brought up on" modern astrology, and I do think the modern sign rulers have merit.

What is the provenance of assigning "modern planets" to Domicile rulership?

Frank
01-08-2012, 11:02 PM
This makes a tidy package, yet some of the sign pairs are incredibly different from one another.

Affinity does NOT equal suitability.

waybread
01-08-2012, 11:10 PM
Sorry, Frank--your last two were a bit cryptic for me. Can you explain or elaborate? (Notably if you are fishing for a particular kind of response?)

Frank
01-08-2012, 11:17 PM
One thing that "modern" astrologers hang on to is the "Astrological Alphabet" that dictates:

Aries=1st House=Mars

Or

Gemini=3rd House=Mercury

(Caveat - I knew Zip Dobyns - who developed the "Astrological Alphabet" and told her I disagreed with its premise. We still got along famously.)

This is incorrect as far as the separation of energies of planets/houses/signs go.

Mars is NOT Aries nor the 1st House.

Venus is NOT Taurus nor the 7th House.

Planet !=Sign !=House. Period.

Frank
01-08-2012, 11:19 PM
Sorry, Frank--your last two were a bit cryptic for me. Can you explain or elaborate? (Notably if you are fishing for a particular kind of response?)

Who decided that Uranus "ruled" Aquarius, Neptune "ruled" Pisces or Pluto "ruled" Scorpio?

sandstone
01-08-2012, 11:19 PM
making blanket generalizations on modern or traditional astrology is a mistake as i see it.. that is what you appear to want to do here with your example frank.. your post :One thing that "modern" astrologers hang on to is the "Astrological Alphabet" that dictates: ...

one could also ask the same question of traditional astrology - who decided much of it?

Frank
01-08-2012, 11:30 PM
making blanket generalizations on modern or traditional astrology is a mistake as i see it.. that is what you appear to want to do here with your example frank.. your post :One thing that "modern" astrologers hang on to is the "Astrological Alphabet" that dictates: ...

one could also ask the same question of traditional astrology - who decided much of it?

Well, we are in the traditional forum, after all.:cool:

The easy answer is, if we go back to the source material (Hellenistic) there was one lost author that all others built on.

But they never disagreed on Domicile rulers.

I know who originally designated the "modern" planets as sign rulers. I wonder if those "modern" astrologers who tout the "modern" rulers know exactly where and when those "rulerships" started.

sandstone
01-08-2012, 11:34 PM
one lost author that everyone agreed upon... how convenient!!!


it seems over the course of time not all traditional astrologers agreed up all of it... take the changes between hellenistic and medieval astrologers towards the use of face for example... obviously not everyone is agreeing with everyone in traditional astrology all the time, although that does certainly paint a picture of amazing consistency which of course isn't there when one takes a closer look..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity

For Medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval) astrologers, such as Bonatti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Bonatti) or Lilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lilly), the dignities had a hierarchy. The most important dignity was domicile rulership; slightly less important was exaltation. Triplicity rulerships were still fairly important in medieval astrology, but nowhere near as vital as they were for Hellenistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic) astrologers such as Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius_Ptolemy). Terms or bounds rulerships became very much diminished in importance, and face rulers were almost entirely ignored. (Lilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lilly) said that the only function face rulers served was to keep a planet from being entirely peregrine--that is, without any essential dignity whatever—which was considered a malefic condition.)
However, Hellenistic astrologers had a very different view of the dignities. To earlier astrologers, such as Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) and Vettius Valens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vettius_Valens), domicile rulership, exaltation, triplicity rulership and bounds rulership were all of equal strength in influence.

Frank
01-08-2012, 11:42 PM
one lost author that everyone agreed upon... how convenient!!!


it seems over the course of time not all traditional astrologers agreed up all of it... take the changes between hellenistic and medieval astrologers towards the use of face for example... obviously not everyone is agreeing with everyone in traditional astrology all the time, although that does certainly paint a picture of amazing consistency which of course isn't there when one takes a closer look..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity

For Medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval) astrologers, such as Bonatti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Bonatti) or Lilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lilly), the dignities had a hierarchy. The most important dignity was domicile rulership; slightly less important was exaltation. Triplicity rulerships were still fairly important in medieval astrology, but nowhere near as vital as they were for Hellenistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic) astrologers such as Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius_Ptolemy). Terms or bounds rulerships became very much diminished in importance, and face rulers were almost entirely ignored. (Lilly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lilly) said that the only function face rulers served was to keep a planet from being entirely peregrine--that is, without any essential dignity whatever—which was considered a malefic condition.)
However, Hellenistic astrologers had a very different view of the dignities. To earlier astrologers, such as Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) and Vettius Valens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vettius_Valens), domicile rulership, exaltation, triplicity rulership and bounds rulership were all of equal strength in influence.

I've corrected my original post to refine my argument to "Domicile Rulers" as I should have stated originally. can you find an example in Classical Astrology that disagrees with the Domicile rulership scheme?

Frank
01-08-2012, 11:45 PM
By the way, I speak and write on Dignity. Perhaps you should see my beginner's article on it here on the Education Board.

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17099

sandstone
01-09-2012, 12:30 AM
frank question "can you find an example in Classical Astrology that disagrees with the Domicile rulership scheme?"

no, but then neither can i find an example in classical astrology where they discuss incorporating uranus, neptune and pluto either...

i am guessing you would like to take number 3 approach...
1) move the clock back
2) ignore planetary discoveries of the past few hundred years
3) stick to trad rulers and leave any new planets out of it

Frank
01-09-2012, 12:45 AM
frank question "can you find an example in Classical Astrology that disagrees with the Domicile rulership scheme?"

no, but then neither can i find an example in classical astrology where they discuss incorporating uranus, neptune and pluto either...

i am guessing you would like to take number 3 approach...
1) move the clock back
2) ignore planetary discoveries of the past few hundred years
3) stick to trad rulers and leave any new planets out of it

But you are in the traditional forum. Refute as you may - using traditional means. :wink:

sandstone
01-09-2012, 01:04 AM
frank question : If we use "modern planets" in the Domicile scheme, where do they fit in the other Essential Dignities?

what is your answer frank?

MaeMae
01-09-2012, 01:09 AM
Jupiter Rising ~
Russian Revolution?

Frank
01-09-2012, 01:13 AM
frank question : If we use "modern planets" in the Domicile scheme, where do they fit in the other Essential Dignities?

what is your answer frank?

I don't use modern planets in the Domicile or Essential Dignities scheme. I feel no need to explain what others may use.

sandstone
01-09-2012, 01:18 AM
oh, i see it was a hypothetical question to see if anyone was silly enough to try to answer... thanks frank.

you have articulated all i need to know, but this was the cinch-er with the icing on top!
>>...you are in the traditional forum. Refute as you may - using traditional means. :wink:<<

gotta love the rules, trad or otherwise....

Frank
01-09-2012, 01:33 AM
oh, i see it was a hypothetical question to see if anyone was silly enough to try to answer... thanks frank.

No, it wasn't supposed to be silly, I was looking for sincere answers. I'm sorry you misunderstood.

waybread
01-09-2012, 02:27 AM
One thing that "modern" astrologers hang on to is the "Astrological Alphabet" that dictates:

Aries=1st House=Mars

Or

Gemini=3rd House=Mercury

(Caveat - I knew Zip Dobyns - who developed the "Astrological Alphabet" and told her I disagreed with its premise. We still got along famously.)

This is incorrect as far as the separation of energies of planets/houses/signs go.

Mars is NOT Aries nor the 1st House.

Venus is NOT Taurus nor the 7th House.

Planet !=Sign !=House. Period.

Hey, Frank. As you know, a lot of modern astrologers don't believe in conflating planets, signs, and houses, either. I, for one. So maybe identify which other modern astrologers you mean.

Frank
01-09-2012, 02:39 AM
Hey, Frank. As you know, a lot of modern astrologers don't believe in conflating planets, signs, and houses, either. I, for one. So maybe identify which other modern astrologers you mean.

As I remarked before, students of Zip Dobyns.

waybread
01-09-2012, 02:48 AM
Who decided that Uranus "ruled" Aquarius, Neptune "ruled" Pisces or Pluto "ruled" Scorpio?

Good question. I imagine a number of astrologers, looking at lots of charts. The first reference I have to Uranus and Neptune in my astrology collection is in Alan Leo's How to Judge a Nativity. I have one of his posthumous editions. But he died in 1917 and the first edition came out in 1903, so the outers' use in modern astrology goes back at least to the early 20th century.

We recall that astrology was in its dormancy period when Uranus and Neptune were discovered.

Of course, Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930. It shows up in Grant Lewi, Astrology for the Millions in 1940-- I'm not sure who worked with it before then, but I think by the 1930s astrologers were quicker off the mark.

Of course, we could ask the same question about astrology in past centuries. Unfortunately a lot of the who-said-what information is now lost. Intriguingly, Hellenistic astrologers were oftentimes mistaken about astrology's roots, attributing a much greater antiquity to it and more prestigious founders than could have been the case. (Nicholas Campion, The Dawn of Astrology.)

waybread
01-09-2012, 02:49 AM
As I remarked before, students of Zip Dobyns.

So who's a student of Zipporah Dobyns? Not most people practicing modern astrology, I should imagine.

Frank
01-09-2012, 02:58 AM
So who's a student of Zipporah Dobyns? Not most people practicing modern astrology, I should imagine.

Do you have numbers? Zip was a friend of mine, we disagreed on some things. You might check with her children, Mark, Maritha and Rique Pottenger.

waybread
01-09-2012, 03:09 AM
Well, we are in the traditional forum, after all.:cool:

The easy answer is, if we go back to the source material (Hellenistic) there was one lost author that all others built on.

But they never disagreed on Domicile rulers.

I know who originally designated the "modern" planets as sign rulers. I wonder if those "modern" astrologers who tout the "modern" rulers know exactly where and when those "rulerships" started.

Frank, this is demonstrably not the case. I've been reading up on the origins of Hellenistic astrology lately, and the more I read, the more complex the picture becomes.

There are some traditional astrologers today who think the roots of Hellenistic astrology go back to King Nechepso and his scribe Petosiris, based on the writings of some Hellenistic astrologers. So for starters, is Hellenistic astrology essentially Egyptian? Not only is there no record of King Nchepso in the very detailed Egyptian king lists, but the more I delve into Egyptian astrology, the more evidence there is for a very long-standing combination of religious beliefs and a star-calendar (from which our decans probably emerged) in that culture.

I have to stress that a lot of traditional astrology was not genethliacal. The Greeks had a very old tradition of using constellations for weather prediction going back to Aratus and Hesiod, for example. The Latin poet Horace (1st century BC) not only talked about weather lore but about individuals having a guiding star, which is different than the horoscopic point. (D. R. Dick, 1963, "Astrology and Astronomy in Horace," Hermes 91 bd. 1: 60-73.)

If we turn to the Babylonians, there just isn't solid evidence for a single founder (whether the Greek Thales or the Babylonian Mr. B. on the island of Cos.) Let alone if we go back to Babylon itself. Philologists have done a lot of research on the Greeks' and Romans' understanding of their own history, and find that their claims oftentimes are confounded by the historical and textual evidence.

Of course Ptolemy noted that the Egyptian and Babylonian terms were different, which hardly argues for a lone Founding Father of Astrology.

But Frank, the suspense is killing me! Who did originally designate modern planets as sign rulers? But we can observe that s/he wasn't acting alone.

Frank
01-09-2012, 03:09 AM
As I understand the new "Traditional Astrology" forum, it's not meant to debate Traditional vs Modern but a place for those who use traditional means to have discussions on traditional/classical astrology without "moderns" bothering those who wish to talk about traditional methods.

So, why are you here?

dr. farr
01-09-2012, 03:12 AM
Remember one fact: the Greco/Romans used the term domicile for a planet is its "house" (sign), not "ruler", which came into use later and actually has implications not found in the term "domicile"; so I can see Pluto at home (domicile) in a sign like Scorpio, and certainly Neptune at home (domicile) in Pisces. But as "rulers" or dispositors OF A SIGN, well, although I use such concepts in practical delineation, on a deeper level I wonder if ANY planet "rules" or "disposes" of any sign? After all, isn't it a SIGN which makes a planet in exaltation, or in debility, or in Fall? No planet puts a sign in debility or Fall, its the signs which do this to the planets. So then how can a planet actually RULE a sign? Terminology and semantics impact this entire discussion, I think (not the discussion on this thread but rather the thinking we have about rulership, dignities, etc) Again, though, I want to say that in practice I am no different than anyone else, I use the term/concept rulership, "lord of the sign", and all the rest of the terms-but I have long wondered if we might have not taken the original concept of DOMICILE for planets too far (in bringing in the concept and term of rulership, etc)

Frank
01-09-2012, 03:12 AM
Frank, this is demonstrably not the case.

What is "demonstrably not the case" ?

Please - try to prove a negative. I await that.

waybread
01-09-2012, 03:16 AM
Do you have numbers? Zip was a friend of mine, we disagreed on some things. You might check with her children, Mark, Maritha and Rique Pottenger.

Frank, this is just getting "curioser and curioser." Thankfully I first learned astrology by reading the older modern astrology books of Robert Hand, and this isn't a mistake that he makes. On another thread, you once mentioned being a friend of astrological historian Nicholas Campion. His 2nd book on the history of astrology gets into the theosophical movement, the Golden Dawn, and other movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. These "founders" of modern astrology postulated a more esoteric approach to astrology; into which the outer planets fit very well.

We both know that astrologers with formal astrology training have different mentor-student lineages, and then there is all kinds of cross-fertilization across the Atlantic and beyond. Alan Leo was British, yet his book sold really well in the US, for example.

waybread
01-09-2012, 03:22 AM
As I understand the new "Traditional Astrology" forum, it's not meant to debate Traditional vs Modern but a place for those who use traditional means to have discussions on traditional/classical astrology without "moderns" bothering those who wish to talk about traditional methods.

So, why are you here?

Do you mean me, Frank? I am responding to your questions. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against modern astrology.

Frank
01-09-2012, 03:25 AM
Frank, this is just getting "curioser and curioser." Thankfully I first learned astrology by reading the older modern astrology books of Robert Hand, and this isn't a mistake that he makes. On another thread, you once mentioned being a friend of astrological historian Nicholas Campion. His 2nd book on the history of astrology gets into the theosophical movement, the Golden Dawn, and other movements of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. These "founders" of modern astrology postulated a more esoteric approach to astrology; into which the outer planets fit very well.

We both know that astrologers with formal astrology training have different mentor-student lineages, and then there is all kinds of cross-fertilization across the Atlantic and beyond. Alan Leo was British, yet his book sold really well in the US, for example.

I know and am friends of most in the international astrology community. That doesn't mean I always agree with them as far as astrology techniques are concerned. I can disagree with them and not be disagreeable. I am my own person and a good astrologer - and they respect that.

If an anonymous person on the Internet takes umbrage at what I say - oh well.

waybread
01-09-2012, 03:25 AM
What is "demonstrably not the case" ?

Please - try to prove a negative. I await that.

Your statement that, "there was one lost author that all others built on" is demonstrably incorrect.

I am happy to provide more information in support of my statement, but it probably belongs on a different thread. However, while we're at it, what is the evidence for your statement?

Hey, and no "umbrage" taken. And no red herrings, please.

Frank
01-09-2012, 03:27 AM
Do you mean me, Frank? I am responding to your questions. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder against modern astrology.

I USE SOME MODERN TECHNIQUES! No, I don't have a chip on my shoulder - but it seems you do.

waybread
01-09-2012, 03:43 AM
Sorry, Frank. I must have missed something. Are you engaging in personal attacks? Just say so, and I will report them to the moderators.

Frank
01-09-2012, 03:47 AM
Your statement that, "there was one lost author that all others built on" is demonstrably incorrect.

Please demonstrate that is incorrect.

My friend, Robert Schmidt, a scholar who has been trying to reconstruct the history of Hellenistic astrology has come to that opinion. From my understanding of what he has told me, he believes that astrology is a metaphysical construct.

A place for learning to begin as it relates to fate,

Can you read Koine Greek (as I am leaning now) or Latin (which I already read) to disprove this?

The theory is that the Hellenistic material available now devolved from the possibly real real/possibly mythical Hermes Trismegestus - or another original author. Those writings have been lost.

Since this is the Traditional Astrology forum, can you add any knowledge as far as those sources go?

waybread
01-09-2012, 06:24 PM
Frank, in order to get this thread on a more on-topic (domiciles) and productive footing, I will start a new thread on the topic of astrology's origins. I hope you will join me there. I will give a reference list there.

Sadly, there are traditional astrologers who read ancient astrology texts at face value, and believe that there really was a King Nechepso or that Orpheus and Hermes were actual people-- and astrologers.

Frank, there is a sizeable academic literature on Hermes Trismegestus. This wasn't a lone individual!!!! Rather, the hermetic literature spanned several centuries, much of it coincident with the same period when astrology's early Greek and Latin texts were being written. The writers and their readers claimed an antiquity for it that didn't happen. Different authors wrote under this pen-name or pseudonym, and much of what they wrote partakes of a black magic tradition that has little to do with Hellenistic genethliacal astrology.

No, I don't read Greek or Latin, but the issues you raise are actually best suited to philologists, not for non-experts in the temporal and regional differences in ancient Greek and Latin writings. Unfortunately some of the would-be Big Boys of traditional astrology have arbitrarily set a language bar that I doubt most of them could set in the context of ancient language scholarship. What I am reading lately are a lot of academic journal articles by scholars who do have this expertise.

Moreover, I am well aware of some of the difficulties with existing translations-- Skyscript tends to have a lot of posts, articles, and links on these issues. I do read French to a degree and can access the publications of Franz Cumont and others, thankfully.

Gotta run. More soon on a new thread.

Frank
01-10-2012, 02:01 PM
Good question. I imagine a number of astrologers, looking at lots of charts. The first reference I have to Uranus and Neptune in my astrology collection is in Alan Leo's How to Judge a Nativity. I have one of his posthumous editions. But he died in 1917 and the first edition came out in 1903, so the outers' use in modern astrology goes back at least to the early 20th century.

For the origins of how Uranus came to be associated with Aquarius, this article covers it pretty well:

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

One telling quote is:

"As late as 1909, Alan Leo wrote in Everybody's Astrology:

Uranus has been given no sign by astrologers, though Aquarius has often been suggested…"

Frank
01-10-2012, 02:16 PM
Frank, there is a sizeable academic literature on Hermes Trismegestus. This wasn't a lone individual!!!! Rather, the hermetic literature spanned several centuries, much of it coincident with the same period when astrology's early Greek and Latin texts were being written. The writers and their readers claimed an antiquity for it that didn't happen. Different authors wrote under this pen-name or pseudonym, and much of what they wrote partakes of a black magic tradition that has little to do with Hellenistic genethliacal astrology.

I suggest this introduction to the topic by Robert Schmidt:

http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=85

"Secondly, according to the best documentary evidence, Hellenistic Astrology came on the scene very suddenly sometime in the second or first century B.C.E. and emerged complete in a very short period of time. This suggests that there was a single shaping intelligence behind its origin—that is was the result of one man or a small school of men working together."

waybread
01-10-2012, 05:39 PM
Frank, these are super links. Thanks. BTW, I have started a new thread on the origins of western astrology on the traditional board. I hope you will post there.

I think Kim Farnell's conclusion that "Uranus is in Aquarius because John Varley put it there" is actually contradicted by the rest of the information in this fascinating article. The body of the article points to a period of uncertainty, with astrologers for nearly a century trying to work through the problem of what to do with Uranus. But often times in information transfers, somebody gets a bright idea first, and after a lot of people mull it around and work with it, they adopt the idea.

Intriguingly, KF wrote: "Luke Broughton in 1899 was of a similar mind to Pearce. Although he kept one eye on Uranus, he wasn't prepared to start dismantling the old rulership system."

As I indicated above, after some years of ignoring traditional rulers of Scorpio, Aquarius, and Pisces, I now look at them as well as modern rulers. I think both have merit; but as planets, the outers won't shoe-horn into traditional astrological methods such as terms. And I think a lot of traditional astrologers are comfortable with using the outers for some purposes but not for all purposes.

I agree with most of Robert Schmidt's propositions, with a few caveats.

We kind of have to get at the problem of astrological origins using the methods/advice of scholars who specialize in the problem of origins and diffusion of ideas.

Schmidt argues for one theory that has much merit: that generally ideas or innovations start in one place and spread out from there. We seldom find multiple, spontaneous out-croppings of innovations.

In terms of where such a "culture hearth" might be, we can look to (A) an innovation's earliest appearance; or simply (B) places where the antecedent conditions would support the innovation's appearance. Oftentimes in antiquity (A) the origins of a particular kind of knowledge (innovation) are lost-- we just don't have sufficient textual or archaeological evidence. If we consider (B) places where astrology could have developed because a lot of antecedents were present, Alexandrian Egypt (namely, the city of Alexandria) seems a really likely point of origin.

But then we have to get into some principles of using texts to determine astrological origins. This gets into historical method (historiography) and philology. Wikipedia on "historical method" is probably as good a source as any.

I am just bewildered by traditional astrologers who want to prune Manilius and Ptolemy out of the Hellenistic family tree, on the grounds that they are outliers because they are so different from the rest of "The Tradition." Historical methodologists suggest, rather, that as ideas spread and as texts on a topic multiply, we are going to see a lot of diversity initially. Sometimes the original texts (or oral transmissions) are messy and contradictory; so over time, translators and copyists try to reconcile the differences, for example. A set of new ideas might fall into the hands an ethnic group with a very different sort of cultural astronomy, so they will come up with a hybrid or "fusion" version, that only later gets integrated into some sort of corpus, getting re-scripted in the process.

So precisely why we want to keep Manilius and Ptolemy in "The Tradition" is because they point to precisely what we would expect to happen in the earlier stages of the innovation and diffusion process. Manilus was clearly influenced by the Graeco-Roman star-lore of his day (cf. Hesiod, Works and Days; Aratus, Phaenomena) and a tradition of writing about the gods/celestial matters in verse. Ptolemy was clearly influenced by the scientific and mathematical advances and theories of his day.

But-- if we get these two men, coming from such different mentalities (plus the others) agreeing on something, then yes-- probably we can point to a core of information that might be part of the original innovation.

But all this takes a lot of time and a lot of research. You would sort of have to take astrological assertions and techniques one by one, and then identify all of the areas of overlap and differences in the earliest available works. You would have to consider corollary sources (as when non-astrologer ancient authors talked about astrology) as well as the archaeological finds discussed by scholars like Otto Neugebauer.

Neugebauer's work is just fascinating because he talks about "demotic horoscopes", meaning horoscopes discovered in Egypt, mostly from the 1st century AD) written in the Egyptian language using Greek characters. Some of these horoscopes use Egyptian concepts for houses, suggesting the very process of fusion and hybridization that we would expect to occur as innovative ideas have to somehow get integrated into an Egyptian society with its own definite cultural astronomy.

Unfortunately this kind of diversity too often gets written out of the narrative by neo-traditional astrologers who want there to be a unified "Tradition" [of which they are presumably the latter-day torch-bearers.]

Moreover, some of them are far too trusting about what the astrological treatises say about astrological origins. Just a classic example of this appears in James Herschel Holden's History of Horoscopic Astrology, 2nd ed; where he looks at horoscopes given for Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome. In calculating astronomical errors in the ancient calculations, Holden completely ignores the fact that there is no evidence that Romulus was an actual person, and considerable evidence that he was entirely fictitious. [Holden's point is well-taken that at least the Romulus "horoscopes" are evidence for astrology's importance when the calculations were made.] There is evidence that Berosus was an actual person, but none for "King Nechepso" so far as potential transmitters of astrology to Greeks are concerned.

If Robert Schmidt is undertaking the required long-term research to find the key to the riddle of Hellenistic astrology's origins, and if he has the skills as a philologist to do this, I take my hat off to him.

Clearly, what is known about Greek, Egyptian, and Babylonian (+ Hebrew, Persian, &c) cultural astronomy prior to the 2nd century BC just does not add up to the explosion of techniques that appear in the early astrological treatises.

wilsontc
01-10-2012, 06:48 PM
All,

Reminder:

I know there are strong opinions on all sides of the question and it is tempting to "let fly" some personal remarks here and there. If you keep the discussion focused on the PROBLEM and not on the PERSON you will get along much better. Please remember that some people will NOT agree with you no matter how great your argument or your point. Instead of trying to force an agreement, make your point or reinforce your point, and then move on or try to make the point a different way.

With flame repellent,

Tim

waybread
01-10-2012, 07:30 PM
Whatever are you talking about, Tim? I thought that Frank was slightly feisty but not over-the-top, and nothing in my posts should have given you concern.

Frank
01-11-2012, 03:31 PM
An analogy that I use to explain how the seven Classical Planets (I'm including the luminaries as planets for brevity's sake in the future) is western music and the chromatic and diatonic scale.

[NOTE: I am not attempting to equate music directly with astrology - it's purely an analogy.]

The chromatic scale has twelve notes, each a half step away from each other I'll keep the discussion in the scale of C-major for simplicity's sake:

Chromatic:
C C# D D# E F F# G G# A A# B C

One can think of the twelve tones of the chromatic scale as the twelve signs.

However, the musical scale most used in western music forms is the diatonic scale (do re mi fa so la ti do) which uses seven tones (once again in the scale of C-major:

Diatonic:
C D E F G A B C

One can equate the seven tones of the diatonic scale to the planets

The Diatonic scale relates every tone in it some way to the Tonic.

For example, in the scale of C-major, C would be the Tonic, and other tones in the scale relate to it thusly:

C – I – Tonic
D – ii – Supertonic
E - iii – Mediant
F – IV – Sub-Dominant
G – V – Dominant
A – vi – Sub-Mediant
B – vii – Leading Tone
C – I Tonic

In western music, the most obvious progression is I - IV - V.

In this analogy, I equate the various Essential Dignities and Debilities to the position of the notes on the scale thus:

I – Tonic - Domicile
ii –Supertonic – Detriment
iii – Mediant - Term
IV – Sub-Dominant – Triplicity
V – Dominant – Exaltation
vi – Sub – Mediant - Face
Vii – Leading Tone – Fall

Now, there is room for argument about which dignity or debility falls where depending on one's musical preference but this is just an analogy - and all analogies are imperfect. The model is not the actual item.

By this we can see that it is not only astrologers who only use the Classical Planets in their rulership scheme who are able to divide twelve by seven with no remainder, but western musicians also.

waybread
01-11-2012, 09:17 PM
Ah! The "music of the spheres"!

Interesting that Ptolemy wrote a treatise on harmonics.

Kaiousei no Senshi
01-15-2012, 03:23 PM
Remember one fact: the Greco/Romans used the term domicile for a planet is its "house" (sign), not "ruler", which came into use later and actually has implications not found in the term "domicile"; so I can see Pluto at home (domicile) in a sign like Scorpio, and certainly Neptune at home (domicile) in Pisces. But as "rulers" or dispositors OF A SIGN, well, although I use such concepts in practical delineation, on a deeper level I wonder if ANY planet "rules" or "disposes" of any sign? After all, isn't it a SIGN which makes a planet in exaltation, or in debility, or in Fall? No planet puts a sign in debility or Fall, its the signs which do this to the planets. So then how can a planet actually RULE a sign? Terminology and semantics impact this entire discussion

This is really a distinction without difference. The phrase that is often used is "x planet is in its domicile" or "the domicile lord of x". Certainly they weren't referred to as signs very often throughout the tradition, but the implication that the planets lorded over their houses is fairly obvious.

I think Kim Farnell's conclusion that "Uranus is in Aquarius because John Varley put it there" is actually contradicted by the rest of the information in this fascinating article. The body of the article points to a period of uncertainty, with astrologers for nearly a century trying to work through the problem of what to do with Uranus.

I kind of agree with this, but it's difficult to miss the recurring theme of "the Hershal planet has affinities in air signs" and "Georgius Siduim rules Aquarius". It's pretty obvious what everyone was going for. Unfortunately all we have are time stamps in history without the intent of their creators candidly documented. It seems too easy to miss the seemily forced coincidence of the ancestral link between Mars [Son] (Scorpio)--> Jupiter [Father] (Sagittarius) --> Saturn [Grandfather] (Capricorn) --> Uranus [Great grandfather] (Aquarius)

Rebel Uranian
01-15-2012, 04:43 PM
It seems too easy to miss the seemily forced coincidence of the ancestral link between Mars [Son] (Scorpio)--> Jupiter [Father] (Sagittarius) --> Saturn [Grandfather] (Capricorn) --> Uranus [Great grandfather] (Aquarius)

I've seen and even used this "trad rulerships except Uranus Aquarius" theory before. The current notion of Uranus is basically Mercury. Go read what Lilly or the Hellenists thought of Mercury if you want to see. I think Uranus operates more like Saturn, Neptune like Jupiter, and I have no idea about the dwarf planets, but what do I know.

JUPITERASC
01-15-2012, 05:22 PM
I've seen and even used this "trad rulerships except Uranus Aquarius" theory before. The current notion of Uranus is basically Mercury. Go read what Lilly or the Hellenists thought of Mercury if you want to see. I think Uranus operates more like Saturn, Neptune like Jupiter, and I have no idea about the dwarf planets, but what do I know.
Robert Schmidt, http://www.projecthindsight.com/index1.html translator of ancient astrological manuscripts from arcane ancient Greek & Latin languages in which they were written, advises us that Hellenistically speaking, each planet has a basic nature from which the more complex significations arise - and their basic planetary natures are the root of any planetary signification.

Mercury’s nature is to contest and to destabilize

Personally, I find it helpful to bear in mind that even if these Hellenistic ideas are over two thousand years old, the ideas remain relevant and anyone sufficiently interested to do so, may use the Hellenistic significations of the planet Mercury today with excellent results :smile:

Rebel Uranian
01-15-2012, 07:03 PM
Also, the Moon should be ruler of Aquarius. The Moon enjoys novelty and it rules people who work with water i.e. waterbearers. Cancer hates novelty, so it obviously can't be ruled by the Moon.

JUPITERASC
01-15-2012, 07:38 PM
It seems too easy to miss the seemily forced coincidence of the ancestral link between Mars [Son] (Scorpio)--> Jupiter [Father] (Sagittarius) --> Saturn [Grandfather] (Capricorn) --> Uranus [Great grandfather] (Aquarius)
Interesting idea, I mulled it over... however, IMO why not consider an alternative-style 'ancestral link' illustrated as follows and solely using the traditional domicile rulers:

Mars [Son] (Aries)--> Sun, [Father] Exalted in Aries/Ruler of (Leo) --> Jupiter, [Grandfather] completes the trio of Fire Signs (Sagittarius) --> Saturn, [Great grandfather] (Capricorn) Exaltation of Mars:smile:

CapAquaPis
01-15-2012, 08:59 PM
To let everyone know, traditional forms of astrology and the ruling planet system aren't completely outdated. The primary rulers of each zodiac sign are discussed, and the sun and moon are celestial bodies, but so are the 3 new planets, plus one centauroid and 2 near-earth objects. The "7 planet-12 sign" method is simple, but anyone (like yours truly) :joyful: know the "older" Jupiter-Saturn system equally applies with me, as much the "newer" Uranus-Neptune system was later "discovered" to hold influences.

Kaiousei no Senshi
01-15-2012, 09:03 PM
Interesting idea, I mulled it over... however, IMO why not consider an alternative-style 'ancestral link' illustrated as follows and solely using the traditional domicile rulers:

It wasn't something that I offered up as any sort of evidence for anything one way or another. That ancestral lineup is merely the reason why Uranus was named Uranus. Saturn is the father of Jupiter who is the father of Mars, so logically the next planet after Saturn should be named after Saturn's father Uranus. I'm merely suggesting that astrologers at that time would have been aware of that link (since it would be recent events for them), and decided to work with it and that's part of why we so many people attempting to link it with Aquarius at the time.

JUPITERASC
01-15-2012, 10:38 PM
Also, the Moon should be ruler of Aquarius. The Moon enjoys novelty and it rules people who work with water i.e. waterbearers. Cancer hates novelty, so it obviously can't be ruled by the Moon.
Hellenistically speaking, the Moon's nature is to gather and include :smile:

CapAquaPis
01-16-2012, 05:52 AM
For anyone's star chart have the Mars-Jupiter-Saturn trio in their 3rd house (in this case in Virgo), what's the significance of the domicile paternal (the ancient Greeks' godly male line) ancestral planetary trio for the one person? That's me...and Uranus the great-grandfather hangs in Scorpio, while in the middle is Pluto in Libra and Neptune in Sagittarius, whom my father's sign is and paternal relationships (the child-father bond) are determined by the 7th house. Now for Aquarius ruled by Uranus has the Sun and the Moon together. The Lunar data gathering skill is similar to Uranus and a trait among many Aquarians - i.e. number punchers, scientists, sociologists and analysists.

Munch
01-16-2012, 08:18 PM
By allocating Uranus the planet of upheaval and revolution to rulership of a fixed air sign, modern astrology breaks its own rules of planet=sign=house. How can fixity have affinity with upheaval and revolutionary change? :smile:

Really excellent point! I have not used any of the 'new' planets as rulers for any of the signs as it seems pre-mature and the old school works so very well! There is something to be said for apparent affinity though.