The Case For Traditional Domicile Rulers of the Signs

Frank

Well-known member
- 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

Banned
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

Well-known member
The issue I was raising was - Can others contribute even more reasons to support traditional rulers?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
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

Banned
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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!
 

waybread

Well-known member
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

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.
 

Frank

Well-known member
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

Banned
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

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

sandstone

Banned
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 astrologers, such as Bonatti or 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 astrologers such as Ptolemy. Terms or bounds rulerships became very much diminished in importance, and face rulers were almost entirely ignored. (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 and Vettius Valens, domicile rulership, exaltation, triplicity rulership and bounds rulership were all of equal strength in influence.
 
Last edited:

Frank

Well-known member
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 astrologers, such as Bonatti or 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 astrologers such as Ptolemy. Terms or bounds rulerships became very much diminished in importance, and face rulers were almost entirely ignored. (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 and 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?
 

sandstone

Banned
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

Well-known member
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

Banned
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?
 
Top