Display posts from previous
Sort by

Aries or Capricorn Ingress ?

1 by Andrew Bevan
I would like some opinions on whether the Sun's ingress to Aries or Capricorn should be taken as the beginning of the year. Maybe there is no clear answer, but it did strike me that with nativities, when there is an inaccurate birthtime, how often a Solar chart will be calculated as an feasible alternative. When a Solar chart is cast we give preference to the placement of the Sun on the radical ascendant (Sunrise)(Aries) and neither the lower or upper Midheaven (Noon)(Capricorn). So the question is whether Aries is the more natural beginning of the year, rather than Capricorn?

If a Capricorn ingress is applied, should it be interpreted differently? Anyone with an opinion?
http://www.astronor.com

2 by MikeCoop
Isn't it because the primary motion of the Sun is taken as the horizontal motion west - east or east west , and not "up - down" north south, so the solar standstills marking the turning points are taken as the principal markers???
mike c

3 by granny_skot
Aries is the begining of the Zodiac and spring, but also Capricorn is for the dead of winter for northern Hemisphere, sort of makes it seem odd to consider a beginning??? well for us earth oriented people anyway. I suppose if you were in the heat of a south hemisphere summer it might not seem odd?

it is interesting that it is the shortest daylight of the year, so in a way it the Beginning of the Sun Cycle. there are many arguments I suppose. But I like to look at each 1/4 cycle. I mean I dont think it is coincidence that business and such is conducted quarterly.

Granny

4 by ###
... but it did strike me that with nativities, when there is an inaccurate birthtime, how often a Solar chart will be calculated as an feasible alternative. When a Solar chart is cast we give preference to the placement of the Sun on the radical ascendant (Sunrise)(Aries) and neither the lower or upper Midheaven (Noon)(Capricorn).
Andrew,

You've committed the sin of equating houses and signs. :-|

There is something to comparing the Sun at the first degree of Capricorn to the IC (not MC) and the Sun at the first degree of Aries to the ASC. In both cases it's a matter of the beginning of ascent and the actual crossing of a boundary. The sun rising over the horizon in the morning is symbolically comparable to the Sun leaving the southern hemisphere and rising into the northern by crossing the celestial equator at the first degree of Aries.

The first degree of Capricorn is when the Sun is most southerly, but starts its return to the north. In Capricorn the Sun is still 'down under' ? one could maybe say 'buried', but is in the process of rising up from the earth. This is reflected in the plant world when by late winter it's evident that the plants have already been progressing into spring with swelling buds and tentative beginnings of new growth. The actual crossing of the celestial equator at the beginning of Aries is the full rebirth (in the Northern Hemisphere ?the birthplace of Western astrology), just as in crossing over the horizon the Sun is reborn into a new day.

Like our preference of the Ascendant over the IC regarding importance, I believe it's appropriate to give preference to the Aries ingress rather than the Capricorn ingress.

5 by MikeCoop
Like our preference of the Ascendant over the IC regarding importance, I believe it's appropriate to give preference to the Aries ingress rather than the Capricorn ingress.
Except... as I brought up in my post above that ignores the whole basis and foundation of astrology. the wheel of the cosmos is hinged on the solstices with the sun/ecliptic standing still in its motion along the horizon (I used "east - west loosely I know) , and around that everything else rulerships , signs etc falls into its pattern.

North south declination is important for the march of the seasons, but just like taking a "road trip" the weather you meet along the way might change the tale to be told afterwards but it doesn't affect why you started out in the first place
just a thought!
mike c

6 by ###
Except... as I brought up in my post above that ignores the whole basis and foundation of astrology. the wheel of the cosmos is hinged on the solstices with the sun/ecliptic standing still in its motion along the horizon (I used "east - west loosely I know) , and around that everything else rulerships , signs etc falls into its pattern.
Mike,

I'm not following you. In Tetrabiblos, Bk II, Chapter XI [Ashmand] Ptolemy in the 2nd Century AD states that ?writers on this subject? had designated the vernal equinox (the Aries ingress) as the beginning of the year. I think that indicates we are safely guarding ?the whole basis and foundation of astrology?!

Here's a bit of the text from page 63 of the Astrology Classics edition of the Ashmand translation of the Proclus paraphrase:

The case stands thus: In the ecliptic, which, as circle, has in fact no actual or definite beginning, the two equinoctial and the two tropical points, marked by the equator and the tropical circles, are reasonably assumed as beginnings. And to obviate any doubt as to which of these four points should preferably be considered as the primary beginning (since in the regular simple motion of a circle no part of it has any apparent precedence), the appropriate quality naturally belonging to each of these four points has been taken into consideration by the writers on this subject. And the point of the vernal equinox has been consequently designated by them as the beginning of the year; because, from that time, the duration of the day begins to exceed that of the night, and because the season then produced partakes highly of moisture, which is always a predominant quality in all incipient generation and growth.

8 by MikeCoop
And the point of the vernal equinox has been consequently designated by them as the beginning of the year;
Hi wasn't that my point??

Please excuse the hyperbole in my previous post
mike

9 by MikeCoop
OOPS Sorry about that last post!!! Obviously there is an argument for Aries too and I obviously wasn't reading there! Please ignore but still apologies for the previous hyperbole anyway!
Basically the point I was making was that there are reasonable justifications for the the Capricorn ingress since the signs through long and short ascension and the parings of the rulerships from faster to slower motion all pivot around those points and the observable motion of the Sun and by inference the ecliptic, could be said to take precedence observationally
but I guess you "pays your money and you takes your choice"
regards
mike

11 by MikeCoop
Hi Kirk
thinking back on your Ashland quote I think I'd still personally prefer Capricorn for several other reasons -

1/ If you start the astrological year at the spring equinox its Autumn equinox in the Southern Hemisphere and since we are equating the start of the year with spring that doesn't make sense

2/ generally in astrology pertinent charts are taken as being either at the actual time of an event or before the event , not so much after the event . since the calendrical year falls before the Vernal equinox for consistency I guess I'd choose Capricorn..

being a traditional forum I also wonder how many people here use lunations anyway as opposed to Ingresses???
regards
mike c

12 by yuzuru
Hi, Andrew:

as philosophy only get us so far, I would say that you should go to the good old prediction and see what really works, instead of what should work.

I always used the aries ingress for the year, and the quarters only when the aries ingress has a cardinal ascendent. It has worked with some of my work on mundane, mainly on political and elections.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Mundane & Financial Astrology”