Zodiac/Lunar Mansions

[Guest guest]

At 09:18 PM 9/13/04 -0700, you wrote:

>

>Hi,

>

>Aldebaran, meaning " Follower " , i.e., following the first lunar mansion

starting

>at 0* Taurus would presume some importance for that axis.

 

D*S,

 

The lunar mansions aren't synonymous with the 12 sign zodiac. They're a

totally different concept. This is where (in my opinion) Fagan took a

misstep. He believed that since the first lunar mansion began with the

Pleiades in Taurus, the zodiac also had to begin with Taurus. But there

isn't a shred of evidence for this belief. The 12 sign zodiac was born much

later than the age of Taurus.

 

There is no particular reason that the ancient lunar mansions have to have

any relationship to the 12 sign zodiac. They were irregular spaced star

groups. That's all.

 

Fagan also followed the medieval error of making 28 equal 'mansions' around

the zodiac. There never was any such thing in the ancient world. Both the

28 mansions and the 27 Indian nakshatras are simply harmonics of the

ecliptic. These harmonic 'spaces' may have unique meanings, but they're not

the same as the ancient lunar houses.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

Therese,

 

I really prefer to call them The Royal Courts of the Moon...360*/28

rounded up to exactly 13* except for the few that are only 12*.

They surely have to be the origin of the so called, " critical degrees " .

I am only interested in the past as source material for personal

invention of viable techniques, i.e., I can put them to work for me.

The astro-archeologists have their own inspirations. Reading,

predicting are not strong among them but publication in

obscure journals is. The New Moon tomorrow is under the

influence of Sun/Jupiter to my understanding and will bring me

just those rewards.

 

Best,

Dark*Star

-----------------------

 

Therese Hamilton wrote:

 

> At 09:18 PM 9/13/04 -0700, you wrote:

> >

> >Hi,

> >

> >Aldebaran, meaning " Follower " , i.e., following the first lunar mansion

> starting

> >at 0* Taurus would presume some importance for that axis.

>

> D*S,

>

> The lunar mansions aren't synonymous with the 12 sign zodiac. They're a

> totally different concept. This is where (in my opinion) Fagan took a

> misstep. He believed that since the first lunar mansion began with the

> Pleiades in Taurus, the zodiac also had to begin with Taurus. But there

> isn't a shred of evidence for this belief. The 12 sign zodiac was born much

> later than the age of Taurus.

>

> There is no particular reason that the ancient lunar mansions have to have

> any relationship to the 12 sign zodiac. They were irregular spaced star

> groups. That's all.

>

> Fagan also followed the medieval error of making 28 equal 'mansions' around

> the zodiac. There never was any such thing in the ancient world. Both the

> 28 mansions and the 27 Indian nakshatras are simply harmonics of the

> ecliptic. These harmonic 'spaces' may have unique meanings, but they're not

> the same as the ancient lunar houses.

>

> Therese

>

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

> Shortcut URL to this page:

> /

>

[Guest guest]

Volguine did major research on the lunar mansions - see " Lunar Astrology " (

ISBN 0-88231-004-6 ). There have been 27 and 28 and 29 house systems. A lot of

confusion arises from there being mansion systems and lunar day systems.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 09:48 AM 9/14/04 EDT, erra321 wrote:

>Volguine did major research on the lunar mansions - see " Lunar Astrology "

>ISBN 0-88231-004-6 ). There have been 27 and 28 and 29 house systems. A

lot of

>confusion arises from there being mansion systems and lunar day systems.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Yes...I need to review Volguine's book. It was originally published in

1936. That'a a long time ago. I have a 1974 reprint. Volgine gets very

heavy on the dying Moon. There's no hope for anyone with a balsamic

(Hecate) Moon. I don't remember exactly what he said (can't review it

today), but this is what turned me off to the book. If Volguine's book in

print now?

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> There is no particular reason that the ancient lunar mansions have

to have

> any relationship to the 12 sign zodiac. They were irregular spaced star

> groups. That's all.

 

The twelve zodiacal constellations are irregularly spaced as well. Is

it possible that if the lunar mansions are measured out in relation to

their reference stars one might find the majority of the main stars in

each mansion fall within the thirteen degree equal division? I have

not investigated this myself but if it were the case it might provide

some rationale behind the division of the lunar zodiac into regular

houses.

 

In his 'Manual of Astrology' (1898) Gorn-Old wrote: 'One subdivision,

however, has been handed down to us from the Chaldeans, which has an

important function in modern practice. It consists of the division of

the circle of the Zodiac into 28 equal parts of 12 6/7 degrees each.

This 28th part is called a 'Mansion' of the Moon, and it is the space

measured by the Moon in the Zodiac by her daily motion inasmuch as she

returns to any given degree of longitude on the 28th day of her

course. A learned friend of the present writer, unacquainted with this

ancient division of the Zodiac, has suggested a new sevenfold division

of the Ecliptic into seven arcs measuring 51 3/7 degrees each, and

this he applied to the anomalies arising out of the Lunar Epoch,

published by the author in 1890. But it is found that this septile

aspect or arc of 51 3/7 degrees, if measured from the four cardinal

points, yields a series of 28 points, exactly corresponding to the

Lunar Manions....'

 

This 'series of 28 points' corresponds to a technique invented by the

French astrologer Dom Neroman (who in 1899 wrote an article predicting

that a planet would be found in 1931 and would be called Pluto): it is

the technique of the heptagram which is used to discover the dominant

planet in any given natus through its position on one of seven points.

It seems that Dom Neroman was the 'learned friend' referred to above.

 

> Fagan also followed the medieval error of making 28 equal 'mansions'

around

> the zodiac. There never was any such thing in the ancient world.

Both the

> 28 mansions and the 27 Indian nakshatras are simply harmonics of the

> ecliptic. These harmonic 'spaces' may have unique meanings, but

they're not

> the same as the ancient lunar houses.

 

There are several schemes in existence - sidereal irregular mansions

based on the movement of the Moon relative to specific indicator stars

as well as tropical regular mansions related to the static measure of

the tropical zodiac without adjusting for the precession of the fixed

stars. The list below was given to me many years ago by an astrologer

who claimed it was a lost remnant of medieval Christian (Rosicrucian)

sidereal star-wisdom. I have never seen this list published anywhere

else nor can I vouch for its authenticity (the asterisks indicate the

critical cardinal points):

 

1. Cornua arietis.* Aries 0.0 [sun].

 

2. Veneter arietis. Aries 12.51 [Moon].

 

3. Caput tauri. Aries 25.43 [Mars].

 

4. Cor tauri. Taurus 8.34 [Mercury].

 

5. Caput canis validi. Taurus 21.26 [Jupiter].

 

6. Sidus parvum lucis magnae. Gemini 4.17 [Venus].

 

7. Brachium. Gemini 17.9 [saturn].

 

8. Nebulosa.* Cancer 0.0 [sun].

 

9. Oculus Leonis. Cancer 12.51 [Moon].

 

10. Frons Leonis. Cancer 25.43 [Mars].

 

11. Capillus Leonis. Leo 8.34 [Mercury].

 

12. Cauda Leonis. Leo 21.26 [Jupiter].

 

13. Canis. Virgo 4.17 [Venus].

 

14. Spica. Virgo 17.9 [saturn].

 

15. Cooperta.* Libra 0.0 [sun].

 

16. Cornua scorpionis. Libra 12.51 [Moon].

 

17. Corona super caput. Libra 25.43 [Mars].

 

18. Cor scorpionis. Scorpio 8.34 [Mercury].

 

19. Cauda scorpionis. Scorpio 21.26 [Jupiter].

 

20. Trabs. Sagittarius 4.17 [Venus].

 

21. Desertum. Sagittarius 17.9 [saturn].

 

22. Pastor et Aries.* Capricorn 0.0 [sun].

 

23. Glutiens. Capricorn 12.51 [Moon].

 

24. Sidus fortunae. Capricorn 25.43 [Mars].

 

25. Papilio. Aquarius 8.34 [Mercury].

 

26. Hauriens primus. Aquarius 21.26 [Jupiter].

 

27. Hauriens secundus. Pisces 4.17 [Venus].

 

28. Piscis. Pisces 17.9 [saturn].

 

These are sidereal regular mansions that begin at 0 of sidereal Aries

and flow on from there. This is not unlike the nakshatra Ashwini-Deva

beginning at 0 of Aries in the sidereal zodiac of Vedic astrology. In

this system the cardinal points are the four main 'critical degrees.'

The rulership sequence follows the Chaldean order with the Sun at the

centre (the cardinal points). The principle value of this system lies

in conversion of the positions of the progressed Moon and transiting

Saturn to the sequence of rulers. If for example your progressed Moon

is in sidereal Gemini 22.54 and transiting Saturn in sidereal Cancer

0.46 then the mansions are Brachium and Nebulosa ruled by Saturn and

the Sun respectively. Brachium is the lunar mansion of 'constricted

communication' because it is in the sign Gemini but ruled by Saturn.

The progressed Moon in this mansion suggests personal communications

are subject to extreme fluctuations and environmental restrictions.

This is how it was taught to me but there may be other applications.

 

Ad astra per aspera

 

Andrew

[Guest guest]

At 06:22 PM 9/14/04 -0000, Andrew wrote:

>

>The twelve zodiacal constellations are irregularly spaced as well. Is

>it possible that if the lunar mansions are measured out in relation to

>their reference stars one might find the majority of the main stars in

>each mansion fall within the thirteen degree equal division? I have

>not investigated this myself but if it were the case it might provide

>some rationale behind the division of the lunar zodiac into regular

>houses.

 

Andrew,

 

We have no way of knowing what boundaries the ancients assigned to the

constellations. No...that's not quite true. We do have various writings

that mention stars of the different constellations. But unless/until

someone works this out in relation to the mansion stars, your question is

rhetorical. All we have today are the boundaries of the astronomers.

 

>In his 'Manual of Astrology' (1898) Gorn-Old wrote: 'One subdivision,

>however, has been handed down to us from the Chaldeans, which has an

>important function in modern practice. It consists of the division of

>the circle of the Zodiac into 28 equal parts of 12 6/7 degrees each.

 

Gorn-Old is flat out wrong here. (Based the published research of scholars

we have to date.)

 

>...A learned friend of the present writer, unacquainted with this

>ancient division of the Zodiac, has suggested a new sevenfold division

>of the Ecliptic into seven arcs measuring 51 3/7 degrees each, and

>this he applied to the anomalies arising out of the Lunar Epoch,

>published by the author in 1890. But it is found that this septile

>aspect or arc of 51 3/7 degrees, if measured from the four cardinal

>points, yields a series of 28 points, exactly corresponding to the

>Lunar Manions....'

 

This is interesting, the septile relationship.

 

>There are several schemes in existence - sidereal irregular mansions

>based on the movement of the Moon relative to specific indicator stars

>as well as tropical regular mansions related to the static measure of

>the tropical zodiac without adjusting for the precession of the fixed

>stars. The list below was given to me many years ago by an astrologer

>who claimed it was a lost remnant of medieval Christian (Rosicrucian)

>sidereal star-wisdom. I have never seen this list published anywhere

>else nor can I vouch for its authenticity (the asterisks indicate the

>critical cardinal points):

>

> 1. Cornua arietis.* Aries 0.0 [sun].

>

> 2. Veneter arietis. Aries 12.51 [Moon]...(etc.)

 

These are the Picatrix mansions, but with very odd names! If this list was

really sidereal (originally), then we can't really tell which came first:

the invention of the 28 equal sidereal mansions or the Tropical Picatrix

mansions. It's obvious, however, that the Picatrix mansions were built on

the early mansion stars and asterisms. The Picatrix mansions have kept the

original names, even though the Tropical signs have long ago left the

sidereal sky areas. Mansion #4, for example, still has a title that's

linked to Aldebaran in Taurus.

 

>...The principle value of this system lies

>in conversion of the positions of the progressed Moon and transiting

>Saturn to the sequence of rulers. If for example your progressed Moon

>is in sidereal Gemini 22.54 and transiting Saturn in sidereal Cancer

>0.46 then the mansions are Brachium and Nebulosa ruled by Saturn and

>the Sun respectively. Brachium is the lunar mansion of 'constricted

>communication' because it is in the sign Gemini but ruled by Saturn.

>The progressed Moon in this mansion suggests personal communications

>are subject to extreme fluctuations and environmental restrictions.

>This is how it was taught to me but there may be other applications.

 

There's a whole new study here!! We need to live longer, like seveal

hundred years, in order to have time to explore even part of that astrology

has to offer.

 

I'll repost a mansion article I wrote for this list earlier this year.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

, Therese Hamilton

<eastwest@s...> wrote:

 

> Gorn-Old is flat out wrong here. (Based the published research of

scholars

> we have to date.)

 

He tended to use florid language. I expect that the reference to the

'Chaldeans' was romantic poetic license for 'ancient astrologers' i.e.

pre-Victorian astrologers.

 

> These are the Picatrix mansions, but with very odd names! If this

list was

> really sidereal (originally), then we can't really tell which came

first:

> the invention of the 28 equal sidereal mansions or the Tropical Picatrix

> mansions.

 

I received this list from Dottie Willis:

 

http://www.solsticepoint.com/astrologersmemorial/whowas2.html

 

'Dottie' and her husband Chris owned a large property in rural Nova

Scotia which they called Nirvana. Dottie was an accomplished technical

astrologer and an astrometeorologist. She was a friend of Edith Custer

and Ivy Jacobsen. She was also one of my first astrology teachers and

she was always passing what she called 'astro odds and ends' onto me.

One day she called to tell me 'I have something here you may like to

have a look at.' Dottie was into Rosicrucianism of various kinds and

she believed the above list had a Rosicrucian origin. But she claimed

to have received it from a British friend who had received it from a

friend of hers who had received it from...Vivian Robson. Dottie said

she had been told that the above list was compiled by Robson and that

he had intended to include it in his book on the fixed stars but that

he had decided to omit it and to instead circulate it privately among

his friends. I have no idea whether or not this tale is true or even

what all of the odd names in the list signify but I thought I would

offer it here on the list for people to play with as they see fit - I

do not believe that either Vivian Robson or Dottie Willis would object

to this.

 

An interesting point is that Dottie called this the 'Draconic Zodiac'

rather than the Lunar Zodiac. Huh? She said it was because the North

Node of the Moon - the Dragon's Head - was exalted in Aries (which is

where this zodiac begins). Huh? I had never heard of this before and

thought it was one of her quaint idiosyncratic notions. But several

years later I discovered that according to Cyril Fagan's research on

the 'Hypsomata' (c. 786 B.C.) the North Node was exalted in the first

degree of sidereal Aries.

 

I do not know if this is a genuinely medieval list of lunar mansions -

or whether it just originated with Vivian Robson or someone else. But

here it is.

 

Ad astra per aspera

 

Andrew