Using Traditional Decans

A few weeks ago a forum member included an astro.com chart with 'traditional' decan(ate)s.
If I remember, I think about decanate influence as an additional influence to interpretation.
I've come up with a snag!

I have always understood that the 'traditional' decanates were divisions of 10* PER SIGN within the sign of the same element. Aries-Leo-Sagittarius, Leo- Sagittarius-Aries, Sagittarius-Aries-Leo, etc.etc.
On the astro.com charts, the 'traditional' decanates are shown BY PLANET.
Mars-Sun-Jupiter, etc.etc.
I checked with the other decanate styles and these are also given per planet.

To my way of thinking, there is a difference in interpretation between a natal planet 'coloured' by a SIGN ( traits within character) and a PLANET (function) decanate.
E.g. only. Venus in 2nd decanate of Libra with Aquarius undertones, would have a different interpretation than Venus in Libra with Uranus (and/or Saturn?) undertones.

Which 'traditional' decanate division is correct?

I much prefer the Manilius decans, which are given as signs (signs within signs), to either the elemental (sign) decans or to the planetary faces decans (that is, the traditional Western designation of decans by planets, either allocated by the Chaldean method, or allocated as the sign ruler of elemental decans)

As to which of these decan systems is correct, that is another matter; probably there is no "right or wrong" system as such, but rather which system gives more accurate results on a more consistent basis; and this in turn might depend upon the practical application being made of the particular decan system.

In my experience, there is no question that the Manilius decan system has yielded the best amd most accurate results for me.

Thank you for your response, Dr. Farr.

I have since found the 'sticky' in the Houses and Cusps section of the discussion re:use of the Manilius decans.

In googling I also came across a reference by Chris Brennan (Hellenistic Astrology Site) that states:

Elsewhere it is notable that in the surviving manuscripts of the Astronomica Manilius fails to address the significations of the planets. While this might simply indicate that something is missing in the manuscripts, in some instances Manilius seems to go out of his way to avoid invoking the planets in situations where they would otherwise normally be used, for example such as in the assignment of the planets to the decans, which he instead assigns to the signs of the zodiac (Astronomica, 4: 294-407

Click to expand...

The highlighted would imply that this was/is the general practise in use of whichever decanate style was/is used.

probably there is no "right or wrong" system as such, but rather which system gives more accurate results on a more consistent basis; and this in turn might depend upon the practical application being made of the particular decan system.

Click to expand...

In my heavily charged Earth-Air chart, case 'practical' is the word.

It would appear that my Taurus Sun and Mercury have to undergo a change of decan perception from sign trait to planetary function.
I wonder in how far (9th house???) that can or will put their 'on firm ground' motivated meaning(s) out of synch.