well, I should admit I would be uncomfortable in switching horaries- not just yours.
An horary chart is different from a nativity, because the former is based more on houses while in the latter we can use general significators.

Anyway obviously we cannot use a different method, I understand this.

I’m lucky I never have this kind of problems

margherita

Thanks very much for the long reply, and surely i don’t hate people because they don’t invert Southern Zodiac….

Writing from Europe, the question is little more than theoretical for me, I would lie in saying the contrary.

Moreover I understand that Maradona chart - taken from a wonderful example by Joe Fallisi which is listed in my bibliography- works because we know this a priori.

About Maradona significator of trade, in the example is chosen according Lilly, ie according Claudius Ptolemaus, of which Lilly was just a commentator, as the greater part of Renaissance and post Renaissance authors. And in fact Lilly mentions all the known story of the significator chosen between Mercury, Venus and Mars, page 625 of Christian Astrology III.

The problem with signs as in Ptolemy is that signs are just portions of ecliptics, the first from Spring equinox should be hot and dry, the second hot and moist and so on, because they depend on the Sun quality of light.

And obviously in the Southern hemisphere you start Spring on the 23 September…. As Campanella did, you can call the next sign Libra, but it is not hot and moist any more, it is hot and dry.

I guess for the Equator no one of the two methods could be used, because they don’t have seasons as we have in the temperate zone.

But in every case I don’t have a definitive word about this subject, (as for nothing) because here we are in the Northern side.

I hope you liked Astrolabium Planum; it’s is very beautiful and I like very much too.

Hope to see you again,

margherita

Here is the image of the horary chart mentioned above:

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/645/chartl.jpg

I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me to do this earlier! In my defence I’m a little bit sleepy

- Robert Bailey, Student in Astrology

As a practicing traditional astrologer who lives in the Southern Hemisphere I often think about this issue myself. You may therefore be surprised that I agree entirely with Morin in that we should definitely NOT go ahead and invert the zodiac for the Southern Hemisphere. Of course I am biased to this view because like Morin I am a student of the Kabbalah and have a firm belief that astrology is indeed a revealed science (see for example the story of Harut and Marut in the Holy Q’uran, 2:102). But there are some more “rational” reasons for those who need them, with which I can hopefully make a good case for maintaining the traditional order of the signs regardless of the hemisphere we are in. We should probably remember that, according to Richard Dawkins, all astrologers are “enemies of reason” so perhaps these rationalizations are out of character for folks like us!

The best “rational” argument for not inverting the zodiac is as follows: We all know that in traditional textbooks the signs from Cancer through to Sagittarius are signs of Right Ascension and the signs from Capricorn to Gemini are called the signs of Oblique Ascension. We all know that the signs of Right Ascension are called the signs of Long Ascension because they rise slowly in the northern hemisphere, and the signs of Oblique ascension are called the signs of Short Ascension because they rise rapidly. But why is this so?

Mathematically/astronomically speaking it is because in the northern hemisphere, the signs of Right Ascension contain LESS degrees of Right Ascension than they do of Oblique Ascension, and the signs of Oblique Ascension contain LESS degrees of Oblique Ascension than they do of Right Ascension. This is the mathematical explanation for why the rising times are the way they are.

For example, in 1981 AD, at 40 degrees North latitude, the sign of Aries (a sign of Oblique Ascension) contains 18.6 degrees of Oblique Ascension compared with 27.55 degrees of Right Ascension. By comparison, at the same latitude, Cancer the first sign of Right Ascension contains 35.35 degrees of Oblique Ascension compared with 32.11 degrees of Right Ascension. So far so good.

The argument for inverting the zodiac is that in the southern hemisphere the reverse is true - the signs we traditionally call those of Right Ascension in fact have MORE degrees of Right Ascension than Oblique, so should be renamed the signs of Oblique Ascension. For example in 1981 AD at 40 degrees Southern latitude, Aries contains 37.43 degrees of Oblique Ascension as opposed to 27.55 degrees of Right Ascension. Likewise the Spring Equinox in the southern hemisphere is the Autumn Equinox. From a rational perspective this means that Aries should be a sign of Right Ascension we should consider inverting the zodiac, right? Well, it’s not that simple

The downfall of all this talk is the important question, “What happens at the equator?” If our poor native is unfortunate enough to be born exactly on the equator, we have an interesting scenario. At 0 degrees latitude, all of the zodiac signs have an Oblique Ascension exactly equal to their Right Ascension. Are the signs now to be considered ALL signs of Right Ascension or ALL signs of Oblique Ascension? Or are they ALL of neither Right nor Oblique Ascension? Also, on the equator the length of day is always the same, all year around - the sun rises and sets in 12 hours. So where is the Spring Equinox? Where should 0 Degrees Aries be? And while this scenario is not common, there must be at least some people in the world who are born at 0 degrees latitude (probably more than we think likely!). If we are going to persist in applying our fallible human rationality to the zodiac, the equator proves to be a really big problem to astrologers.

In this situation, we have two choices: choice number one is to use our so-called rationality and say that because of the mathematics, all 12 signs are neither of Right Ascension or Oblique Ascension, or else they are all BOTH Right and Oblique at the same time. This seems ridiculous and makes astrology on the equator near-impossible. Or we can go beyond the limits of rationality (into the “supra-rational”) and say that the signs from Cancer through to Sagittarius are still, and always will be, the signs of Long Ascension, regardless of the mathematics. If we choose the former “rational” approach, we basically cannot use astrology to judge the lives of people born on the equator. If we choose the second “supra-rational” approach, we can still use astrology to judge the lives of people born on the equator. We have a choice of either abandoning astrology at the equator, as though the middle of the world has a sort of “astrological immunity”, or maintaining that astrology works the
same no matter where you happen to be born. And if you have any faith in the plausibility of astrology, you will know which to choose.

Now, as I stated above I have been practicing traditional astrology in the southern hemisphere for several years now and I have always found the traditional zodiac to work just fine. I have had some remarkable successes using horary astrology that would be impossible if I had inverted the zodiac.

For instance, I cast a horary chart for a client who was asking about his financial situation. The chart was cast for 15 February 2009 at 4:52 pm, latitude 35.23.40 South, longitude 149.4.7 East. I invite you to cast the chart if you want to check it for yourself. Now, upon reading this chart I told the client that it showed their partner had recently died and that this was causing him financial problems. Note that I did not know his partner was dead, the information is contained only in the chart. In the chart, we have Leo on the 2nd house cusp, Capricorn on the 7th house cusp and Aquarius on the 8th house cusp. The Sun rules the 2nd house (finances), and is afflicted by being inside Aquarius (the sign of his Detriment) and inside the 8th house, the house of death. Also, the Part of Fortune is at 15 Pisces, in opposition to Saturn, who rules the 7th house (partners) and 8th house (death) in the chart. Saturn is also located inside the 2nd house of finances. Jupiter, the dispositor
of the Part of Fortune, sits within 5 degrees of the 8th house cusp. My client was astonished when I told him this and confirmed that his wife had indeed been dead for some time and that her passing was still causing him a lot of financial problems!

Now if we inverted the zodiac for this chart as Cardano and Campanella suggest then none of this information would have been available to me. The 7th house sign would have been Cancer, and the 8th house sign would have been Leo and I would not have been able to make this highly accurate judgement. I could supply many more examples such as this one.

I should also point out that your quote from the Centiloquium is actually equally supportive of a 28 degree Scorpio ascendant, if we accept your interpretation of “Lord of the Geniture” as meaning “Lord of the Ascendant” (which is not a given, see Lilly’s differing opinion on the subject at Christian Astrology Book 3, chapter 105). For ease of argument I will accept your interpretation, so from here on I will refer to the “Lord of the Geniture” as “Lord of the Ascendant” with some reservations. It is worth quoting the aphorism again for ease of reference:

“52. The lords of the genitures of men of tall stature are in their sublimities, and their horoscopes in the beginnings of signs: but the lords of their nativities who are of short stature, are found in their falls: together with this, enquire whether the signs be of right or oblique ascension.”

This aphorism can be broken down into 4 separate points, in order as they appear: 1) Tall men have their lord of the ascendant in “sublimities” which means essential dignities. So strong planets mean tall and weak planets mean short. 2) Tall men will have their horoscope (ie Ascending degree) in the beginning of signs. 3) Short men have the lord of the ascendant in the sign of that planet’s fall. 4) The rising sign being a sign of right ascension indicates a tall man, a sign of oblique ascension indicates a short man.

Now we can probably also agree that in each of these cases the inverse is true, for example in the case of 1) if a tall man’s Lord of the Ascendant is well-dignified then ispo facto a short man will have the Lord of the Ascendant poorly-dignified. Likewise in the case of 2), if an early ascendant means a tall person then a late ascendant means a short person etc etc.

So, to my argument. Let’s look at this carefully using firstly a Scorpio ascendant and then the “inverted” chart with a Taurus ascendant.

SCORPIO ASCENDANT: Point 1) - Mars is quite poorly dignified by being in the sign of his fall, which means the native will be short. Point 2) - 28 degrees of Scorpio rises, this is a very late ascendant, so the native will be short. Point 3) - Mars is in Cancer, the sign of his fall, so this again means the native will be short. Point 4) Scorpio is a sign of long ascension, so this means the native will be tall.

So out of 4 points, we have 3 for short and only one for tall.

TAURUS ASCENDANT: Point 1) - Venus is poorly-dignified by being Peregrine, which argues for shortness. Point 2) - 28 degrees rises, so again an argument for shortness. In this instance an inverted zodiac doesn’t make much difference! Point 3) - Here Venus is not in the sign of her fall. This argues for a normal or tall height, but not short! Point 4) Taurus is a sign of short ascension, so the native will be short.

Again we see 3 out of 4 arguments for shortness, only one for tallness.

So in this case inverting the zodiac doesn’t seem to make much of a difference - each way we get 3 out of 4. And because the Scorpio ascendant still indicates shortness, and we needn’t stray from the tradition to produce this result, I am definitely inclined to stick to the traditional ascription of the signs which I have used throughout my practice.

The issue of Maradona having a weak Lord of the Ascendant is interesting but he certainly won’t be the first or last successful person to have a weakened planet as the lord of his rising sign. It seems to me a better indicator of career would be to look to the 10th house, and to the Sun, as Lilly explains in Christian Astrology Book 3 Chapter 144. In fact seeing the Sun in the 12th house seems to make sense to me given the way that Maradona ruined his career by self-destructive choices such as drug abuse - not that I wish to cast aspersions on a truly great man and a hero to many. I will confess that natal astrology is not my strong point - I tend to stick more to horary with my clients because it produces precise results that are easily verified, like my above example.

I hope that I have made a convincing case for maintaining the traditional zodiac in the southern hemisphere. I certainly do not want to argue with you about this - I admit I am a student of astrology and far from a master, and the last thing I want is to make an enemy of you. I merely want to point out some of the ideas I have on this important matter because, living in the Southern Hemisphere, this issue is very important to me!

I hope we can remain friendly because traditional astrologers need to stick together, and having only just started my own website I need online friends I would also like to say that I have found your blog very interesting, and downloaded your .pdf of Astrolabium Planum with glee! Thank you for maintaining such an informative and interesting blog, I will definitely be returning here in the future.

Sincerely and with the greatest respect,

Robert Bailey, Student in Astrology.

I read some comments about my article in another site, a shy reader….

He says that - if I well understand, it would be better if he would write directly here, that in traditional texts like Firmicus it is Mercury which makes athletes.

If he wrote here I would reply that yes, it’s because for Firmicus, as in Manilius, paranatellonta give the quality of signs and profession.

And with Gemini there arises Lepus…

Still in Maradona chart, Mercury is the only planet could not act as a significator of profession: it’s retrograde and invisible.

And according medieval and renaissance commentators this condition cannot do the activity, rather the inclination.

But Maradona was one of the greatest soccer champions of all the time, like Pelè, how we could call it an inclination?
Willing or not we are obliged to discard Mercury.

Hope next time the shy reader would write here, I’m always opened to comments,
margherita