The Case For Traditional Domicile Rulers of the Signs

Frank

Well-known member
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

Banned
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....
 

waybread

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.)
 

Frank

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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)
 

waybread

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 

waybread

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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?
 
Top