In traditional astrology Saturn is not the sole ruler of Aquarius

[Bunraku]

There is this idea in traditional astrology that the Sun rules the solar half of the zodiac, and the Moon rules the lunar half. They split the cosmos ruling as king and queen. The Sun in the solar half can never be peregrine. The Moon in the lunar half can never be peregrine.

The brilliance and influence of the luminaries overpowers even all of the other planets combined.

Guess which side Aquarius is on?

 

[Humanitarian]

I think Aquarius is lunar in this case, because the split is between Cancer and Leo, and the division is at the 0° Leo - 0° Aquarius axis, and so signs from Leo to Capricorn are solar, signs from Aquarius to Cancer are lunar.

 

[Osamenor]

I haven't heard of a solar half and lunar half of the zodiac before. If there is such a thing, I would guess that the fire and air signs are solar and the water and earth signs are lunar. That would fit the yin and yang polarities (traditionally known as feminine and masculine polarities, respectively).

That would make the Sun and Moon at home in their exaltation signs as well as their domiciles. But it would also change their fall and detriment signs to additional domiciles.

Aquarius would then be solar, because it's an air sign.

 

[JUPITERASC]

There is this idea in traditional astrology that the Sun rules the solar half of the zodiac, and the Moon rules the lunar half. They split the cosmos ruling as king and queen. The Sun in the solar half can never be peregrine. The Moon in the lunar half can never be peregrine. The brilliance and influence of the luminaries overpowers even all of the other planets combined. Guess which side Aquarius is on?

I haven't heard of a solar half and lunar half of the zodiac before. If there is such a thing, I would guess that the fire and air signs are solar and the water and earth signs are lunar. That would fit the yin and yang polarities (traditionally known as feminine and masculine polarities, respectively).

That's simplified
as illustrated :

That would make the Sun and Moon at home in their exaltation signs as well as their domiciles. But it would also change their fall and detriment signs to additional domiciles. Aquarius would then be solar, because it's an air sign.

 

[Osamenor]

That's simplified
as illustrated :

That's not quite the same thing as what the OP in this thread says. According to that chart, fire and air signs are the day domiciles of their ruling planets, while water and earth signs are the night domiciles. Sun only has a day domicile (Leo) and Moon only has a night domicile (Cancer). Sun and Moon are, contrary to the OP's assertion, peregrine in all other signs (except their exaltation, fall, and detriment signs).

I can believe this is what she was thinking of when she made the post. But it's incorrect that Sun and Moon are not peregrine in the day or night signs, respectively.

 

[JUPITERASC]

That's not quite the same thing as what the OP in this thread says. According to that chart, fire and air signs are the day domiciles of their ruling planets, while water and earth signs are the night domiciles. Sun only has a day domicile (Leo) and Moon only has a night domicile (Cancer). Sun and Moon are, contrary to the OP's assertion, peregrine in all other signs (except their exaltation, fall, and detriment signs).

Indeed

I can believe this is what she was thinking of when she made the post.

OP provides no tradional source for their statement

But it's incorrect that Sun and Moon are not peregrine in the day or night signs, respectively.

 

[Kennythes]

The idea of the Sun and Moon sharing the cosmic throne, each reigning over their respective halves, adds another layer to our understanding of the zodiac. And when it comes to Aquarius, being in the lunar half, it definitely makes you pause and reconsider its influence. I'm intrigued by the concept that the luminaries' power surpasses that of all other planets combined. It speaks to the profound significance attributed to the Sun and Moon in astrological interpretations. Also, I couldn't help but notice your mention of self-knowledge obtained from a numerical system using artificial intelligence analysis. Definitely going to check out thepythagoras.com to learn more about it! That sounds like an innovative approach to understanding oneself and the cosmos.

 

[JUPITERASC]

It's fascinating to think about the traditional astrological perspective on rulership. The idea of the Sun and Moon sharing the cosmic throne, each reigning over their respective halves, adds another layer to our understanding of the zodiac. And when it comes to Aquarius, being in the lunar half, it definitely makes you pause and reconsider its influence. I'm intrigued by the concept that the luminaries' power surpasses that of all other planets combined.

The seven classical planets all orbit the luminary SUN


.

 

[Osamenor]

And when it comes to Aquarius, being in the lunar half, it definitely makes you pause and reconsider its influence.

However, the idea that the sun and moon are each domiciled in half the zodiac appears to be a misunderstanding. We haven't found any source in traditional astrology that says that. The closest is day domiciles and night domiciles. Aquarius, being an air sign, is the day domicile of Saturn (Capricorn being the night domicile).

Every traditional planet except Sun and Moon rules either one earth sign and one air sign, or one water sign and one fire sign. Air and fire are the day domiciles; earth and water are the night domiciles.

 

[JUPITERASC]

However, the idea that the sun and moon are each domiciled in half the zodiac appears to be a misunderstanding. We haven't found any source in traditional astrology that says that. The closest is day domiciles and night domiciles. Aquarius, being an air sign, is the day domicile of Saturn (Capricorn being the night domicile).

Every traditional planet except Sun and Moon rules either one earth sign and one air sign, or one water sign and one fire sign. Air and fire are the day domiciles; earth and water are the night domiciles.

 

[DavidMcCann]

The OP seems to be referring to the idea found in Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 1.17) "… they assumed the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar and that The OP seems to be from Aquarius to Cancer to be lunar…" The idea is not found in any other ancient or medieval author known to me. Even it it were true, it would have no bearing on sign rulership.

 

[JUPITERASC]

The OP seems to be referring to the idea
found in Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 1.17) "… they assumed the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar and that The OP seems to be from Aquarius to Cancer to be lunar…" The idea is not found in any other ancient or medieval author known to me. Even it it were true, it would have no bearing on sign rulership.

Ptediously
Ptolemy LEFT NO ASTROLOGICAL CHARTS AT ALL
&
Albert Timashev article
"..Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years.." has this to say of Ptolemy:
"..Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy
was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school
and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all.
Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal
and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions.."
http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en


Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time
instead Ptediously
Ptolemy
talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus
Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus
The planetary positions calculated according Ptolemy's theory
were
during his own lifetime in error of up to 8° for Mercury
4° for Venus, 2° for Mars, 1° for Jupiter & Saturn
the Moon longitude up to 1°.
The observation error of a simple astrolabe is around 15 arc minutes (0.25°)



.

 

[DC80]

The idea of the Sun and Moon sharing the cosmic throne, each reigning over their respective halves, adds another layer to our understanding of the zodiac. And when it comes to Aquarius, being in the lunar half, it definitely makes you pause and reconsider its influence.

That's what happens when people don't understand what they read.

The signs have two groupings:
1) Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Taurus, Gemini and Cancer; and
2) Capricorn, Sagittarius, Scorpio, Libra, Virgo and Leo

The first group is the fast rising signs also known as the straight signs or straight rising signs.

The second group is the slow rising signs also known as crooked signs.

Yes, Cancer is one of the fast rising signs and Moon does rule Cancer but it does not astrologically follow that Moon rules over all the fast rising signs just as there's no evidence Sun rules over all the crooked signs and there's no textual support for any claims they do.

I believe it's Maternus who calls them lunar and solar but he does not say those signs are ruled by Sun or Moon so somebody needs to get hooked on phonics.

That's 10 reasons right there to avoid whatever website is posting that ****.

 

[DC80]

The OP seems to be referring to the idea found in Ptolemy (Tetrabiblos 1.17) "…

Oh, gawd gag me with a spoon.

Ptolemy was not an astrologer. He never cast even one chart in his entire life. He was a commentator. If he was alive today he'd be one of the talking heads you see on CNN or Fox or MSNBC spewing nonsense or he'd be a wikipuke, you know, one of those guys living in mommy's basement playing with his man-bun and deluding himself into believing he's an expert because he read something like the guy who claims 200 marines is a "battalion." No, wrong, the TO&E for a marine battalion in 1971 was exactly 1,026 officers and enlisted men which is not "200."

Or like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_certificates

That guy never went to college and has no experience in economics, banking or finance and he doesn't understand how GDP is calculated or that $1 of imports generates $3 to $18 of GDP.

That's Ptolemy. If you read what he wrote, he's trying to show how astrology fits the Aristotelian view and in spite of using a jack-hammer, crowbar, sledge hammer and 400 tons of plastic explosives to force fit astrology into Aristotle's nonsense he failed spectacularly but he did succeed in making a mess that we're trying to clean up 2,000 years later.

The Aristotelian view is Fire-Water-Earth-Air which would be Aries-Cancer-Taurus-Gemini

Astrology is based on the Hermetic/Stoic traditions which is why it's Fire-Earth-Air-Water or Aries-Taurus-Gemini-Cancer.

If you want to be a better astrologer and make good predictions you need to be reading Plato, Critias Protogoras, Timaeus or from the Roman period Marcus Aurelius because those were all Stoics.

That will give you an understanding of form and matter and of time and space. If you rely on Ptolemy and the Aristotelian view of form/matter and space/time you'll get it wrong.

For that reason natal charts are read differently than predictive charts because of the time/space relationship.

In a natal chart, Jupiter in a right square to Mars is good and Mars in a right square to Jupiter is bad.

But, in a predictive chart where you have directed, profected, progressed or transiting Jupiter in a right square to Mars that is destructive and something very bad (non-natal Jupiter in the 4th place right square natal Mars in the 7th is probably going to be death or serious injury).

Conversely, Mars as any time ruler being directed, profected, progressed or transiting and right square Jupiter is going to be something wonderful.

So, if you want to be a better astrologer ignore Ptolemy and everything he says.

 

[DC80]

You can ignore Rhetorious, too.

Rhetorius was not an astrologer. He never cast even one chart in his life. He was merely a commentator.

The difference between Rhetorius and Ptolemy is:
1) Rhetorius didn't have an agenda
2) Rhetorius is morally and ethically superior because he tells you when he's quoting someone while Ptolemy is quoting Nechepso and Petrosiris but very deceptively doesn't tell you that.

Some of you are going to say Rhetorius did cast a chart. No, he didn't.

The star positions in that chart are not possible at the time Rhetorius lived or in at least 1,000 years prior to his life.

For that reason, 90% of astrologers believe Rhetorius made up those star positions as a hypothetical example to illustrate a point.

10% of astrologers believe a copyist may have inserted the chart while making a copy of the text 150 years after Rhetorius died because some of the star positions are possible but there's still issues with the other stars so most likely the copyist made up the chart as a hypothetical example.

 

[DC80]

Your tables are whacked.

There's no such thing as detriment or fall.

If you don't believe that, look at John Lennon's chart where he has a Libra Sun and a Libra Mars.

No one can show how anyone is harmed by a star being in "detriment" or "fall."

"Fall" and "exaltation" aren't even the right words. The correct translations of those Greek words is elevation and depression.

The texts clearly say Mars is "exalted" at Capricorn 28° and depending on the text "exalted in his exaltation" or "in the exaltation of his exaltation" at Libra 28°.

For those who don't get it, a star cannot be doubly exalted and simultaneously in "detriment." That does not compute.

Mars is in the "fall of his fall" at Aries 28° which is the sign he rules.

For those who don't get it, a star cannot be in "double fall" and simultaneously powerful.

The elevations and depressions of the stars are star cycles unrelated to their motion. The elevations and depressions are used in predictive and mundane astrology.

That's one reason people can't calculate length of life (not the same thing as predicting death) or predict death because they don't understand that a star having a wind contrary to the apheta is malefic and you have to use the elevations and depressions to calculate the steps to find the winds.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Your tables are whacked.
There's no such thing as detriment or fall.
If you don't believe that, look at John Lennon's chart where he has a Libra Sun and a Libra Mars.
No one can show how anyone is harmed by a star being in "detriment" or "fall."

some refer to "..Fall.." as "..Exile.."

"Fall" and "exaltation" aren't even the right words. The correct translations of those Greek words is elevation and depression.
The texts clearly say Mars is "exalted" at Capricorn 28° and depending on the text "exalted in his exaltation" or "in the exaltation of his exaltation" at Libra 28°.

"..Fall.." is possibly "..Exile.."

For those who don't get it, a star cannot be doubly exalted and simultaneously in "detriment." That does not compute.
Mars is in the "fall of his fall" at Aries 28° which is the sign he rules.
For those who don't get it, a star cannot be in "double fall" and simultaneously powerful.

agreed

The elevations and depressions of the stars are star cycles unrelated to their motion. The elevations and depressions are used in predictive and mundane astrology.
That's one reason people can't calculate length of life (not the same thing as predicting death) or predict death because they don't understand that a star having a wind contrary to the apheta is malefic and you have to use the elevations and depressions to calculate the steps to find the winds.

.