Thema Mundi: an alternate to natural house rulers?

[dr. farr]

Certainly the seasonal explanation for the tropical zodiac does NOT work when we consider the flow of the elements and the elemental affinities of the cardinal signs:
In ALL (Western) elemental affinitive systems: Fire is warm and dry, Air warm and moist, Water is cold and moist, Earth is cold and dry
In ALL (Western) elemental systems, each season is associated with a specific element: Fire = summer, Air = spring, Earth = autumn, Water = winter
Now, in the Northern hemisphere there is 0 correlation between the element of the season and the corresponding element of the sign (cardinal or tropical sign) of the beginning of that season, viz:
Spring = Air/ Aries = Fire
Summer = Fire/Cancer = Water
Autumn = Earth/Libra = Air
Winter = Water/Capricorn = Earth
...no elemental correlation at all

Funny thing, in the Southern hemisphere there is a correlation between sign/season in half of the seasons: Cancer/cold+moist, matches Winter (Water) in the Southern hemisphere; Libra/warm+moist, matches Spring (Air) in the Southern hemisphere; but there is no correlation in the Southern hemisphere for Aries and Capricorn (Southern hemisphere Autumn and Summer seasons)

In another post on AW I have explained my understanding of the "why" as to the ordering of the chain of tropical signs as correlated with what alchemists call "the circulation of the elements", unfortunately I don't remember where that post is (since I have nearly 7000 posts I have lost track)...

 

[tsmall]

Certainly the seasonal explanation for the tropical zodiac does NOT work when we consider the flow of the elements and the elemental affinities of the cardinal signs:
In ALL (Western) elemental affinitive systems: Fire is warm and dry, Air warm and moist, Water is cold and moist, Earth is cold and dry
In ALL (Western) elemental systems, each season is associated with a specific element: Fire = summer, Air = spring, Earth = autumn, Water = winter
Now, in the Northern hemisphere there is 0 correlation between the element of the season and the corresponding element of the sign (cardinal or tropical sign) of the beginning of that season, viz:
Spring = Air/ Aries = Fire
Summer = Fire/Cancer = Water
Autumn = Earth/Libra = Air
Winter = Water/Capricorn = Earth
...no elemental correlation at all

Funny thing, in the Southern hemisphere there is a correlation between sign/season in half of the seasons: Cancer/cold+moist, matches Winter (Water) in the Southern hemisphere; Libra/warm+moist, matches Spring (Air) in the Southern hemisphere; but there is no correlation in the Southern hemisphere for Aries and Capricorn (Southern hemisphere Autumn and Summer seasons)

In another post on AW I have explained my understanding of the "why" as to the ordering of the chain of tropical signs as correlated with what alchemists call "the circulation of the elements", unfortunately I don't remember where that post is (since I have nearly 7000 posts I have lost track)...

I wish you could recall the thread, dr. farr. I'd love to read it.

It is interesting, isn't it, that the elemental model doesn't match the percieved beginning of each season if we look at a seasonal calendar and base the first sign as the start of the calendar/zodiac.

I have often wondered how a circle can have a beginning, and the zodiac is a circle. I can see how the crossover between the beginning of the zodiac and the start of a new year/new growth in spring would or may have happened, but it still seems as though there is a very good reason why Cancer is the rising sign in the Thema, and all the ancients agreed that the first house is the sign containing the ASC. They were pretty smart, so you would think they would have noticed something as drastic as that where they placed the "natural" first house didn't match with the chart of the world?

 

[dr. farr]

I think that is because the schema's represented 2 different levels of manifestation: the Thema, the fundamental (ultimate causal) "spiritual" foundational level, the Aries =1st house schema the proximate, "ethero=physical" "surface", "mundane world" level (these ideas come from a certain hermetic order, dating back to the time of Paracelsus)

 

[JUPITERASC]

I wish you could recall the thread, dr. farr. I'd love to read it.

The post dr. farr refers to may well be the following one tsmall and if you click on the linking facility box next to where it says 'originally posted by dr. farr' you'll find yourself connected to the original thread on which it was posted

Cardan (several hundred years ago) was the first to suggest a reversal of signs for the Southern Hemisphere (then rather newly discovered)

But Manilius (14 AD) speculated a Southern Hemisphere to the Earth (vide "Astronomica") but did not feel that the order of signs, etc, be changed to account for this.

The idea of signs = seasons (in my opinion) is NOT the basis of the sequential order of signs; this has to do with the macroscosmic "circulation of the elements", and not upon what season exists in a particular location.

Just consider the "seasonal" allocations relative to the elements of the signs in the NORTHERN Hemisphere:

Spring equinox: all authors give the element of Spring as "warm and moist", ie, Air element: what's the sign (in the tropical zodiac)? Aries which = hot and dry and = Fire

Summer solstice: all authors give Fire (hot and dry) as the element of Summer; what's the sign? Cancer-cold and moist, ie Water (exact reverse of the seasonal element in the Norther Hemisphere)

Autumn equinox: all authors give cold and dry to the Autumn season, ie, Earth; what is the sign for the autumn equinox? Libra, warm and moist, = Air

Winter solstice: all authors give cold and moist for Winter, ie, Water; what is the sign of the winter solstice? Capricorn, which is cold and dry, = Earth.

...so even considering the Northern Hemisphere, the tropic signs (Aries, Cancer, Libra, Capricron) do NOT match the elemental seasons, not AT ALL (elementally)

Obviously the signs and their sequence were NOT originally allocated based upon Northern Hemisphere seasonal considerations...

Very interesting dr. farr, thank you - much appreciated

It is interesting, isn't it, that the elemental model doesn't match the percieved beginning of each season if we look at a seasonal calendar and base the first sign as the start of the calendar/zodiac

Most intriguing and well worth mulling over IMO

I have often wondered how a circle can have a beginning, and the zodiac is a circle...

fwiw IMO any natal chart is a mathematical convention constructed so as to impose some kind of order on a transient starry vault... remember that all heavenly bodies are 'travelling in space-time continuum' and our Sun is no exception.

Planet earth is not only orbiting our sun at approximately 60,000 miles per hour BUT IS ALSO TRAVELING WITH THE SUN which itself travels at 40,000 per hour on its orbit around a far distant sun some contend is the fixed star Sirius

I can see how the crossover between the beginning of the zodiac and the start of a new year/new growth in spring would or may have happened, but it still seems as though there is a very good reason why Cancer is the rising sign in the Thema, and all the ancients agreed that the first house is the sign containing the ASC. They were pretty smart, so you would think they would have noticed something as drastic as that where they placed the "natural" first house didn't match with the chart of the world?

 

[Anachiel]

Hi tsmall.

Cancer is not the ASC because of any metaphysical reason or as a demonstration of any 'first' sign. If you look at the Thema, the signs from Cancer to Sagitarrius are all signs of long ascension. The signs from Capricorn to Gemini, all signs of short ascension. The Thema is divided along the Solsticial signs, horozontally, much like we might find on the Earth, the latitudinal lines of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

This is what we know as anticia, anticions


Now, on the vertical the chart is divided along the equinoctial or signs that have relation to each other by the same length of rising/setting. The Sun's declination is similar in each of these signs. So, for example, in Taurus the Sun is at 11-18 north declination and in Aquarius it is 11-18 south declination. These are signs of equal rising and setting.

Euclid, for one, postulated all this and set it down to rule in his Phaenomena which is probably easy found on the web somewhere. ima sure the copyright has expired by now. lol

Anyway, the Thema Mundi is simply demonstating some basic astronomical principals, as well as the physical or astronomical way we perceive the universe to move about us (i.e. rising/setting, light/night, etc). It is a very compact little teaching schema.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I did a forum search, and couldn't find this topic as a discussion of what the Thema is, which doesn't surprise me since it seems to belong only to the realm of traditional astrology...but I wanted to post it here because so many members seem hesitant to visit that forum.

It appears that the Thema Mundi is an Hellenistic astrological teaching aid

Eric Francis notes: “Thema Mundi is the chart that truly is one of the ancient keys to astrology. Keys lead to doors and doors lead to different places... this is the beginning of an adventure”. And fwiw, IMO tsmall, many astrologers agree with the Thema Mundi placing of Cancer as the 'natural first house' instead of Aries.

An example is the following 97 word extract, sourced from an article viewable at http://planetwavesweekly.com/dadatemp/1832374392.html

QUOTE:
“Cancer, sign of mothering associates with the 1st, house of incarnation, where one comes into tangible form.

Aries is Thema Mundi 10th house of fiery initiative, career, fame, worldly expression. Capricorn does not fit the outgoing initiative required of 10th.

Aries as the natural sign associated with 10th helps us understand Aries Point, which seems closer in meaning to 10th than to Ascendant.

Children are often conceived in 5th house - overlaying the house of passionate sex with the sign of mysteries of birth and death makes sense. A fun romance, can involve you deeper than you planned”

 

[Rebel Uranian]

Isn't the 7th supposed to be relationships? How does that suit Capricorn?

2nd - money - Leo - nope, the Sun hates this house
3rd - communications - Virgo - all right
4th - roots - Libra - makes more sense for Saturn
...

 

[Moog]

Isn't the 7th supposed to be relationships? How does that suit Capricorn?

I'm not sold on this Thema Mundi thing, but I can think of a connection for this one. Getting married is like attaching a big ball of lead to your life (Saturn)

 

[tsmall]

Isn't the 7th supposed to be relationships? How does that suit Capricorn?

2nd - money - Leo - nope, the Sun hates this house
3rd - communications - Virgo - all right
4th - roots - Libra - makes more sense for Saturn
...

2nd does not = money. Second = resources that support the body (ASC.) In the real world this might mean money to buy those resources, but really? Moon as the body (*1st) and Sun in 2nd for the life force that supports it...

 

[tsmall]

I'm not sold on this Thema Mundi thing, but I can think of a connection for this one. Getting married is like attaching a big ball of lead to your life (Saturn)

Moog, I don't think that's exactly how it's supposed to be, lol.

Capricorn is what? And what are marriages? Especially in the "days of yore" when marriages were mainly business arrangements? Also, the 7th is business partnerships, as well as the house of open enemies...wow, so we just described (open enemies) both marriages and business partnerships.

Seriously though, wouldn't you want Saturn's involvement in both? Things made of the solidity of earth, and able to stand the test of time? What was it someone here used to say...Saturn (Capricorn?) cements things?

 

[JUPITERASC]

Isn't the 7th supposed to be relationships? How does that suit Capricorn?

Relationships involve serious commitment

2nd - money - Leo - nope, the Sun hates this house

not necessarily IMO! 2nd also represents what one values - those non-material considerations linked to one's personality aka sun sign

4th - roots - Libra - makes more sense for Saturn
...

tsmall in an earlier post on this thread reminded us that Libra is the Exaltation of Saturn so Thema Mundi makes sense that Saturn "is exalted by Venus in the house that signifies home roots" - and that's particularly appropriate since Venus is one of the significations of the mother - thus uniting the parental significations associated with the 4th. Many layers there to explore

...If you look at the Thema chart, take the 4th house. Libra, ruled by Venus (one of the traditional significations of the mother), the exaltation of Saturn. If we play with the ideas a bit, Libra is the natural 4th house. Saturn (the father) has a natural affinity with the 4th (well, that makes a ton of sense, now doesn't it?) and is exalted by Venus in the house that signifies "home/roots." This also gives us Saturn's affiliation with death, as the 4th represents death among other things.

 

[Rebel Uranian]

Saturn likes the 1st, therefore hates the 7th It also hates Cancer in the 1st.

 

[tsmall]

Saturn likes the 1st, therefore hates the 7th It also hates Cancer in the 1st.

Saturn joys in the 12th, and using the Aries schema is exalted in the 7th, and in fall in the 1st.

 

[dr. farr]

In the Thema Mundi schema, Libra is on the 4th: interestingly Saturn is exalted in Libra, and for Manilius (14 AD) Saturn's House of Joy is the 4th house (see "Astronomica")...

 

[tsmall]

In the Thema Mundi schema, Libra is on the 4th: interestingly Saturn is exalted in Libra, and for Manilius (14 AD) Saturn's House of Joy is the 4th house (see "Astronomica")...

That is interesting. I haven't gotten 'round to Manilius (sigh, so much to read...but considering that I've been at this for a whole year ) dr. farr, does he <Manilius> change the joys from the accepted norm for other planets? I'm curious to know if his house joys reflect the planets exaltations in the Thema...and if there isn't some crossover in terminology. I have already seen a difference, for example, in saying that a planet "rejoices" when, vs. a planet "joys" in. It seems there is a distinction.

Another thing I have noticed (It's amazing what you can see if you just look at the chart, with the exaltations and joys combined in it) is that I believe that traditionally, both in Hellenistic and Vedic astrology, planets have natural enemies...the traditional ones that I am familiar with are Venus/Mars, Jupiter/Mercury and Saturn/Sun and Moon. This is reflected in the planetary domicile/detriment setup. But if we look, we can see for example that Venus, whose joy is in the 5th, joys in Mars favored sign of Scorpio. Maybe why Venus herself seems to do better in Scorpio than in Aries?

And, let's just assume for argument's sake that Cancer is the natural 1st. It's the domicile of the Moon, the exaltation of Jupiter, and the joy of Mercury. And all three of these planets have consideration over the intellect, a direct association with the 1st house.

One other thing I found extremely cool. The Sun joys in the 9th, in Pisces (encompassing all things?) which is the domicile of Jupiter and the exaltation of Venus. Perhaps a very good reason as to why the 9th, though "cadent" is traditionally considered a good place? Also could by why in fact the "sign" of the Christ is Pisces? In the third, we have the sign of Virgo (rationalization/ideas brought to fruition?) which is the joy of the Moon and both the domicile and exaltation of Mercury...and please let us note the aspect the Sun and Moon make in this set up. It's a full Moon. When the Moon is full, it and the Sun "appear" to be the same size in diameter when viewed from Earth.

It's funny, too, that at least from a Gnostic perspective, it was Venus who breathed the divine light into man, which gives much more credence to the idea that Venus is the exaltation ruler of the 9th.

 

[tsmall]

Hi tsmall.

Cancer is not the ASC because of any metaphysical reason or as a demonstration of any 'first' sign. If you look at the Thema, the signs from Cancer to Sagitarrius are all signs of long ascension. The signs from Capricorn to Gemini, all signs of short ascension. The Thema is divided along the Solsticial signs, horozontally, much like we might find on the Earth, the latitudinal lines of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

This is what we know as anticia, anticions


Now, on the vertical the chart is divided along the equinoctial or signs that have relation to each other by the same length of rising/setting. The Sun's declination is similar in each of these signs. So, for example, in Taurus the Sun is at 11-18 north declination and in Aquarius it is 11-18 south declination. These are signs of equal rising and setting.

Euclid, for one, postulated all this and set it down to rule in his Phaenomena which is probably easy found on the web somewhere. ima sure the copyright has expired by now. lol

Anyway, the Thema Mundi is simply demonstating some basic astronomical principals, as well as the physical or astronomical way we perceive the universe to move about us (i.e. rising/setting, light/night, etc). It is a very compact little teaching schema.

Anachiel, thank you, because of course I (hey graduated from newb I hope, but still a novice, lol) forgot about the signs of long and short ascension...and yes, the geometry seems near perfect (do I get points for understanding antiscia? ) but...I really think that there couldn't be a more perfect, as you say, compact little teaching schema, and I really do think if we just look at the dang thing there are many, many layers there. It's almost too perfect? Which leads me back to the point, that these ancient guys knew what they were doing when they created it (or it was created for them??) And that still says to me that if they wanted Aries to be the first house, then it would have been....

 

[dr. farr]

Manilius planetary joys: Mercury in 1st, Moon in 3rd, Saturn in 4th (Saturn was not moved to the 12th until over 100 years after Manilius), Mars in the 6th, Sun in 9th,
Venus in 10th, Jupiter in 11th

Another interesting "co-incidence (?)" using the Thema Mundi compared to the Circle of the Athla (which was the first known Hellenistic "house meaning" model, mentioned in Manilius) is the allocation in the COA of "dangers" to the 7th house: the 7th in the TM is under Capricorn, and it is interesting that Mars is exaltated in Capricorn-certainly there appears to be a connection between Mars and "dangers"!! Wonder if that might just have something to do with allocating the exaltation of Mars to Capricorn???

 

[tsmall]

Manilius planetary joys: Mercury in 1st, Moon in 3rd, Saturn in 4th (Saturn was not moved to the 12th until over 100 years after Manilius), Mars in the 6th, Sun in 9th,
Venus in 10th, Jupiter in 11th

Another interesting "co-incidence (?)" using the Thema Mundi compared to the Circle of the Athla (which was the first known Hellenistic "house meaning" model, mentioned in Manilius) is the allocation in the COA of "dangers" to the 7th house: the 7th in the TM is under Capricorn, and it is interesting that Mars is exalted in Capricorn-certainly there appears to be a connection between Mars and "dangers"!! Wonder if that might just have something to do with allocating the exaltation of Mars to Capricorn???

Maybe, dr. farr, that is the reason for giving Mars exaltation in Capricorn.

Forgive me, I'm not on top of my game today, but a little bit of searching and I find that the Circle of Athla was cast using the PoF as the ASC (the Military has nothing on astrology when it comes to abbreviations ) and ties the natal to the mundane? Doesn't it then signify that casting the chart from the lot of fortune could give much more insight into the life, physical, spiritual, and event related, of the native? (this isn't argument. these are the questions that keep me awake at night, lol)

The best internet source I could find (short of reading the entire original poem) for the circle is here

http://www.auxmaillesgodefroy.com/marcus_manilius

and while time constraints (a birthday part, a sick bat, and a car accident) didn't allow me to deeply study all of it today, I found this part the most prosaic...

Yet are not Lots thus fixt to Signs to lie Possessing the same Station in the Sky, And from one place directing down to Earth An equal Influence work on every Birth But still the Time of every Birth confines These Lots to Seats, and makes them change their Signs, That every Lot, from every Sign may flow, And vary the nativity below. But lest Confusion too much Change produce, And make the Art too intricate for Use;

Going just by memory (I really need to make notes on this stuff) didn't Valens say though that Mars transiting the 7th is rotten? Yet another sign of "dangers?"

So, 7th in the Thema is Capricorn, ruled by Saturn (diurnal malefic, enemy of both Sun and Moon, and interestingly enough, the exaltation of Mars...and the house of open enemies.) What, really, is the 7th then? Funny that no planet joys in the 7th, when we would expect that at least one would. After all, the 7th is the house of marriage...except, it isn't the house of pleasure, but rather the house that opposes the ASC...much to think about there, no?

 

[dr. farr]

Right: Manilius starts the COA from the Part of Fortune, and you know what the other name for the POF is (or at least, was, in the oldtimes)? The Lot of the MOON (so the Lot of the MOON starts the COA chart-just as the SIGN of the Moon, Cancer, starts the Thema Mundi schema) I suggest that both schemas (the COA and the TM) are closely related to each other, which would make sense, since both seem to have had the same point of origin, that is, in the early synthesis of Hellenistic astrology in Alexandria during the first few centuries BC, and under a neo-platonic, neo-pythogorean (ie "hermetic") aegis.

 

[piercethevale]

Mars transiting the 7th is rotten? Yet another sign of "dangers?"

Like, I tried to point out. If we consider Virgo to be the that of the 1st House then Capricorn is that of the 8th...and that is the House that deals with the affairs of the dead....and when Mars gets it's tit in a wringer...invariably a lot of people end up dead.*
I find it rather interesting that so many astrologers now try to embrace science for explanation as to the creation of the Universe yet still want to cling to ideas and concepts [or corrupted ideas and concepts] that make no scientific sense.

What the Greeks, or whomever, or whatever civilization, it was that they adopted the Thema Mundi from and then promoted it, seem to want every one to believe is that It All just suddenly appeared out of nowhere neatly arranged like pieces on a chess board.

...give me a break...


* I'm not saying that it is simply that. I saying to KEEP IT SIMPLE.
As I've given explanation in a thread somewhere in the forum I wrote quite some time ago, I believe I titled it, "The Birth Chart of the Universe", that the Sabian Symbols for the two degrees of Aries 30* and Taurus 01* represent the [Aries 30*] 'Seed of the previous creation' and [Taurus 01*] 'the Germ of the present creation'. As taking what comes from the knowledge of the Kabbbalist Astrologers given to us by the good Rabbi Dobin in his book on the subject and what the late, great 20th century thinker and astrologer, Dane Rudhyar concluded from his studies of many philosophies and schools of Astrology.
As those two degrees represent the Descendant of the birth chart of creation...in tandem...and the Desc. is the "WHERE-TO" of the subject [whether it be a biological or a physical entity ...regardless] This 'Birth Chart' must be understood in the tandem relationship at the four corners [or four points] of this "Birth Charts'" axis. The "Seed" and its' "Germ".

The symbol for the 30th of Aries being that, as given and defined by Dane Rudhyar, is:

"A DUCK POND AND ITS BROOD.
KEYNOTE: The realization of natural boundaries."

That is the, "What Was", of the previous creation.
The boundaries where set. Nothing could think or get outside the 'Box' ...and that of course is rather dull as to being so predicable... [yeah, well many a free thinker has said that "Heaven" sounds to them like it must be a pretty boring place.]
As I explained [or I believe I did] in the thread I mentioned, that it stands to reason that the previous creation was "Perfection in every way imaginable and most likely also beyond our imaginations...or most of us... and perfection will proceed in a perfectly predictable way. Translation...there's no 'Free Will'.
So, given that doesn't it make sense that the 'Creator' then thought...How can something become ever greater than I can imagine? How can my essence ever evolve into something even greater?
Ask any [or most any] Bible thumping fundamentalist and they will insist that God only creates perfection...call you blasphemous or a heretic if you say otherwise. Yet, can they tell you why, even though there are 'Golden Ratios' and such, nature doesn't actually conform to those concepts?
It's obvious. The Creator thus created it all 'perfectly imperfect', allowing for mutation. By allowing for mutation from that which is "only modeled after perfection' is it not possible that what was created may possibly mutate into something greater than even the Creator can possibly imagine their self?
...of course it is..
Hence why Taurus 01* symbolically gives us the answer as to the "WHERE-TO" of this present Creation we all find ourselves to be apart of. [ibid.]

"A CLEAR MOUNTAIN STREAM.

KEYNOTE: The pure, uncontaminated and spontaneous manifestation of one's own nature.

Here we see life substance in its original dynamic form and as it emerged from its spiritual source. This is true whatever the nature of the source may be. In a sense the mountain stream is conditioned by the nature of the soil and by all the forces which in the past have formed the mountain's rock strata: that is to say, by past history. Yet out of this past a new, pure (i.e. unadulterated) release of potentiality has emerged. It is ready to perform whatever work its dharma is to accomplish.

This is the first stage of the seventh five-fold sequence of phases. Matter is still imbued with great potential energy, energy being matter at its source. It is flowing irresistibly toward its own destiny. It is simply ITS OWN NATURE."

"...and what is, is the was, of what shall be..." [quote: myself]

..summation: Nature doesn't seek out complications...to be something anymore complex than it needs to be... as you can quite see that Taurus 01*, symbolically, is the "Tao" in the purest, simplest, meaning of the "Tao".

Keep it simple...and avoid those that tell you that it has to be, must be, can only be otherwise ...and you can't go wrong....

...and this is all, IMHO...of course!