What I found was contradiction. Hence his system of dignities which I follow is under scrutiny, because I am following someone who didn?t actually believe in the South Node as a strict debility, yet who inscribed it into his system.

But I have to disagree. Lilly's work, in particular his chart work - not just in CA but in all his publications - shows a very strong and clear emphasis on the South Node as a difficult, malefic point. Even in the example quotes you offered in your first post, there are only two where the SN is not treated as an obvious malefic:

"Moon with North Node OR South Node shows Active spirits, prompt in any science..."

Of Mercury:

"When he is with North Node or South Node, he renders most accute and witty and good linguists, speaking many languages..."

The full quote for the first reads

"Moon with North Node or South Node shows active spirits, prompt to any science; best of all when she increases in light, and is not far from the full" (CA., p.544)

It is true that the SN is not treated as a malefic here, although it may be suggesting a sense of mental restlessness which prevents contentment. All in all, this is hardly balancing out all the many references to the South Node as a malefic.

In its full context the second quote reads:

"Fifthly, when he (Mercury) is not afflicted, especially of Mars, but is well placed, and in an airy sign, especially Aquarius, and with North Node or South Node, he renders most acute and witty men, and good linguists, speaking many languages..." (CA., p.545)

Again, the nodes seem to add to a 'sharpness of mind', but don't forget all the fortunate prerequisites to this aphorism. I am sure that any indications of affliction would be exaggerated by the presence of the nodes.

All of the other quotes you give in your first post show the SN being given an unfortunate meaning, and support Lilly?s designation of a -4 debility score.

Oh - just saw your last comment which you posted as I was replying. Of course I had read your post, but I'm happy to leave it at that. I have no desire to waste my time either.

Thank You Deb,


You are right in that perhaps only two of my quotes are relevant to my point, I was giving an unbiased proposition, by saying, that here is some information that may point to the contrary. And Lilly is pretty much confirmed in the fact that SN is malefic all the way throughout his writing, I don?t deny this either, I sifted through all of it in any case, to find those two little gems of quotes.

And when I read the Romano document on Valens I was provoked into thinking that perhaps there is someone else who thinks differently on the Nodes within the traditional historical context.

Romano quotes Lilly as saying that he didn?t know "why" it was so only that it was. Which to me is not good enough an explanation, his sources, primarily Ptolemy I do take with a pinch of scepticism, because I have read Tetrabiblos and find that work to be, despite accepting the Essential Dignity system, to be lacking in reason. Merely stating fact without saying why, (or that according to the ancients) is going to arouse all of my energy and questioning.


But I want to make clear to you here that I am not trying to disprove anyone or dismantle any particular text or person, especially not Lilly.


I want to know why the nodes work as they do. Thus far all the information that I have is that they are the interceptions of the Earth and Moon sort of like Equinox points, and where only Lunations may occur.

The equinxial nature of them is why I raised the issue of Aries Libra in terms of a polarity between North and South, since Solar Equinox takes place at these tropical degrees.


The fact of the matter is that on the equinoxes Mars holds the Northern side with Jupiter Aries-Pisces, while Venus holds the Southern Solar Node if you will with Mercury, on simple domicile rulership of the signs which are found at these declinations.


Looking at the finer details of essential dignity for the Equinox points you end up with:

0 Aries: Mars, Sun, Jupiter
0 Libra: Venus, Saturn, Moon

Those are the terms, rulership triplicity and faces for those two Nodal Degrees.


My thinking now, and I?m looking for logic, behind the fact, without quoting what anyone else states, or thinks or proposes, its only my idea;

Is that the Lunar Nodes must be treated in a similar way to the Solar Nodes, from which are gained the so called "aries point" and the Sun?s "bendings" equivalent to the Lunar bendings, at the solstice points, the basis of the tropical Zodiac itself.


I don?t have that much to back up my proposition, only to say that there are examples I can think of in which Nodes are neither Malefic nor benific in the sense that they do not deserve to be thought of in the same category as 12th house debility or of being under Sun?s beams debility.

If Venus is at Zero degrees tropical Libra it does not have accidental debility being in the Southern Node of the Sun-Earth interception, it has its powers greatly enhanced. Though Sun here is Fall.

Forgive my lack of clarity in other posts Deb, and I hope that this one is explains some of my reasons for questioning Lunar Node status.

Possibly also, I want to consider dignified planets with Nodes, Nodes conjunctions with Stars, dispositors; for example a planet in domicile with accidental dignity yet on SN.

Romano quotes Lilly as saying that he didn?t know "why" it was so only that it was. Which to me is not good enough an explanation

The fact Lilly doesn't claim to know all the answers gives him a humanity and humility which I really admire. He was also honest enough to lay out the traditional view but confess it didn't match his astrological experience. I dont know what more you really expect from one astrological source. I certainly wish some modern traditional writers would follow Lilly's example and make clear where they are diverging from the traditional understanding.

Moreover, Lilly is clearer on this issue than some of his contemporaries. For example William Ramesey, the 17th century author of 'Astrology Restored' admits he is not sure what the nodes mean due to the differing astrological views and leaves it up to the reader to explore. At least Lilly offers us the benefit of his actual experience.

Rather than turn this into 'The Trial of Wlliam Lilly' I suggest you look more widely throughout the whole astrological tradition to see what other sources have to say on this topic. You can then form your own conclusions after trying this out in charts.

My thinking now, and I?m looking for logic, behind the fact, without quoting what anyone else states, or thinks or proposes, its only my idea;

Good luck but perhaps you should be somewhere else on the forum if that is your approach? I dont think such idiosyncratic speculations really belong on the traditional page of the forum. People come to this part of the forum to share a better undertstanding of traditional sources not to set out their personal revisioning on the whole astrological tradition. There are other places to do that both on skyscript and on the web generally. This forum page is precious space for traditionalists. Please respect that fact.

MarkC wrote: I certainly wish some modern traditional writers would follow Lilly's example and make clear where they are diverging from the traditional understanding.

I agree and this is the only reason I like Bezza, even if I don't agree in many cases and I almost quarrel every Wednesday at my astrology course with his friend.
At least Bezza gives always quotes and references, so it's easy to check.
But many others don't do like that - for me sentences like "it's a mistake due to the transmission" or "nobody understands let alone me" are without any meaning.
There is a famous Italian astrologer - now dead and in peace- who repeated in all her books that Mercury is exalted in Scorpio and the exaltation in Virgo is a mistake of the copyist
For what I understand mistakes deriving from transmission are well known to scholars.

Moreover, Lilly is clearer on this issue than some of his contemporaries. For example William Ramesey, the 17th century author of 'Astrology Restored' admits he is not sure what the nodes mean due to the differing astrological views and leaves it up to the reader to explore. At least Lilly offers us the benefit of his actual experience.

The fact is that both versions about Nodes are in the Tradition. Rethorius thinks that South Node is benefic when it is with malefics and Alchabitius gives both versions.
So I believe that here there is room for personal choices and experiences, as Lilly did.

Margherita

Well, it?s better than what you?ve brought to the table isn?t it. What did you actually contribute to the discussion Marc C? Idiosyncratic indeed.

I think that looking at the Lunar nodes as Equinoxial points is logical and shows understanding of the dynamics of astrology itself, while still having a deep respect for the dignities used by the traditional astrologers.

It?s funny how to criticise some work gets flat out rejection, without consideration, when it?s an old piece of writing.

I?m interested to know what you yourself believe without reference to "the Babylonians" or "Ramsey". It?s like you asking me what 2 + 2 equals and me answering, well the "Babylonians" ... Or "my maths teacher would say"...

The Lunar Nodes are not open to interpretation, there is a right answer somewhere to be found... and I am sure that as you have suggested looking through the literature on the subject we can come closer to finding that truth, but to go around in pointless quotations with no aim except to prove how well read you are is intellectual chicanery, you get nowhere, least of all the logical factual truth.

I?ve read Lilly and Ptolemy, a bit of Valens, and various pieces that are in reference to various others, my bookshelf is limited. So I don?t claim to know the facts, I merely contribute what I?ve got and hope that other people will do likewise. Please don?t be offended by my apporoach, it?s in good spirit, and I give all that I have to the discussion.

Hi Night Sky

I?m not sure if you understand this or not, so excuse me if I?m stating the obvious, but the two traditions come from the same perspective of the South Node as a weakening point - of decrease and discharge - and the North Node as a strengthening point - of increase and augmentation. The idea that the South Node becomes ?fortunate? with the malefics is only because it is believed to have a weakening influence, therefore it decreases the influence of whichever planet it conjoins, whereas the North Node ?increases? and so makes any malefics it is joined to more influential. Lilly?s argument is that he only experienced the South Node as acting like malefic wherever it was placed. I understand the logic of why the South Node is considered beneficial with malefics, but my experience has been like Lilly?s. I have more difficulty relating to the North Node as a benefic, because (from a horary perspective) I?ve often noticed that charts relating to difficult or traumatic situations get asked when the nodal axis is strongly highlighted.

Sad to say I haven?t had time to read Clelia Romano?s document yet although it looks superb. I have to finish a piece of research I cam currently working on.

The South Node as with the North is simply a place where eclipses and Lunations can occur. In this light there is nothing to mark any difference between the two, apart from the fact that North is ascending into the Northern hemisphere while South descends into the Southern hemisphere.

I don?t subscribe to this. From a purely objective point of view, that?s correct, but astrology is not purely objective ? it is filled with symbolic associations and meaning applied to notions of ascension and descension. Anyone who sees things this way may as well argue that eclipses are simply places where the luminaries meet ? and the Sun is just a ball of light.

BTW - people are quite open with comments and views in this forum, and usually no offence is meant - we are used to arguing points back and forth.

Well, it?s better than what you?ve brought to the table isn?t it. What did you actually contribute to the discussion Marc C?

Civility and manners?

As for my view I already told you that.....try looking on one of the other threads you have generated about this.

However, your whole attitude is really objectionable as far as I am concerned so I have no intention of taking up any further time on this thread.

I'd been going through my files because it seems like me, all my friends, and many of my clients have conjunctions to the moon's nodes, and I came to pretty much the same conclusion that Clelia did - then read her article.

South seems to be just plain bad for most folks, and North, in my experience, does seem to bring some success but there's always an attendant loss that goes with.

I'm certainly willing to accept other people's findings, but that's what I've seen.

The nodes are eclipse markers - which often 'eclipse' the planet they're conjunct in one way or another, usually at a detriment to the person involved. Even Mercury/SN - which possibly brought some good to people in some ways, but took away a lot in other ways.

Traditional Indian astrology considers both North and South Lunar Node as malefics. This appears more logic to me.

Deb wrote:

The South Node as with the North is simply a place where eclipses and Lunations can occur. In this light there is nothing to mark any difference between the two, apart from the fact that North is ascending into the Northern hemisphere while South descends into the Southern hemisphere.

I don?t subscribe to this. From a purely objective point of view, that?s correct, but astrology is not purely objective ? it is filled with symbolic associations and meaning applied to notions of ascension and descension. Anyone who sees things this way may as well argue that eclipses are simply places where the luminaries meet ? and the Sun is just a ball of light.

I too have my doubts about the Nodes. I feel very attracted to the 'scientific' approach rather than the 'symbolical', however the latter probably is indispensable if the former cannot be totally explained. I don't think this approach distracts too far from traditional approach. Ptolemy's approach was highly 'scientific' for his days and Kepler tried other scientific approaches in the light of heliocentrism.

In Jim Tester's 'A History of Western Astrology' p.162 he writes that only after the Middle Ages the Lunar Nodes had 'materialized' which was contrary to the spirit of Ptolemy. http://books.google.nl/books?id=L0HSvH9 ... #PPA162,M1
In this article http://www.springerlink.com/content/q02 ... lltext.pdf
shortly is mentioned that: "They did not follow Ptolemy in rejecting the moon's nodes as pseudo-planets and useless additions to pure astrology." But I don't know where Ptolemy said this.

If the two Nodes do have different meanings related to an approach related to the northern hemisphere of the Earth, then I can accept that their character might alter on Earth's southern hemisphere.

In the recent Venus thread Margherita mentioned something about the thoughts of Renaissance astrologers on the astrological signs on the southern hemisphere. I hope I don't interpreted too loosely. It is on page 2 in case for need of the whole context.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15

Gjiada wrote:

Further there is the problem of the location on Earth. A while ago MarkC and I exchanged some PM's in which he mentioned Maurice McCann who thinks that on the southern hemisphere the rulerships should be reversed. Other astrologers also mention this and this seems very logic to me. Furthermore attributing the temperaments to the seasons in the locations in the tropics would add even other difficulties.

In CieloeTerra they reverse the signs in fact. Let's say now Sun is in Aries, they put in Libra for the southern hemisphere. They follow Cardano, Campanella and (surprise) Placido

To be precise Cardano suggests to save the sign name but swithes domiciles, so in practise it's easier switch the signs.

So could this be applied to the Nodes as well?

Another remark is that it is quite difficult to astronomical theoretically define the Lunar Nodes. Using the 'Mean' Node it can occur that the Moon is conjunct the Node but not on the ecliptic. The 'True' Node on the other side doesn't seem to be that 'true' at all as the ?'s 2.2.1. & 2.2.2. of this article http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph. ... c226863925 shows.

It may be noted that I like a lot to theorize the matter. However I also try to put things in astrology to a 'test' as far as that is possible when looking in ones own chart. I doubt about the Nodes because I don't really 'notice' their transits. Yet they sometimes would be welcome if I hadn't Uranus or Neptune at 'my disposal'. There are a few 'events' in my life during Node transits that do make me think though.

So however I have my doubts about the Nodes, for the time being I give them the benefit of the doubt .

Hello Eddy,

Eddy wrote:
In this article http://www.springerlink.com/content/q02 ... lltext.pdf
shortly is mentioned that: "They did not follow Ptolemy in rejecting the moon's nodes as pseudo-planets and useless additions to pure astrology." But I don't know where Ptolemy said this.

But Ptolemy uses nodes:
"To these influences and their effects, as above detailed, the Moon also contributes: for, should she be in the bends of her southern or northern boundary, she will render the properties of the mind more various, more versatile in art, and more susceptible of change: if she be in her nodes, she will make them more acute, more practical, and more active." Tetr. III,18

And Cardano, who hates Arab astrology uses nodes too..


But next sentence in the text you mentioned is true: " And the monks embraced the view of the medieval Arab scholar Albumasar (Abu Macsar), who attested to their powerful effects."

Albumasar quote in "Albumasar in Sadan" about the use of nodes in ritual magic and talismans is very famous.

If the two Nodes do have different meanings related to an approach related to the northern hemisphere of the Earth, then I can accept that their character might alter on Earth's southern hemisphere.
So could this be applied to the Nodes as well?

But why? nodes are measured the ecliptic, hemispheres on the equator...Or I'm wrong? My knowledge of astronomy is infamous

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:But Ptolemy uses nodes:
"To these influences and their effects, as above detailed, the Moon also contributes: for, should she be in the bends of her southern or northern boundary, she will render the properties of the mind more various, more versatile in art, and more susceptible of change: if she be in her nodes, she will make them more acute, more practical, and more active." Tetr. III,18

Hi Margherita,
I remember we exchanged some thoughts on the nodes over here, http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4192

It seems that Ptolemy mentions the nodes only in relation to the (place of the) Moon not as independent things that can aspect other planets etc. So perhaps could it be that he rejected the latter while using the former view?

Gjiada wrote:

If the two Nodes do have different meanings related to an approach related to the northern hemisphere of the Earth, then I can accept that their character might alter on Earth's southern hemisphere.
So could this be applied to the Nodes as well?

But why? nodes are measured the ecliptic, hemispheres on the equator...Or I'm wrong? My knowledge of astronomy is infamous

Yes you are correct. But it seems that the symbolism of the nodes is related to the going 'up' respectively 'down' of them (but I'm not sure about that). In my attempt to see astrology in an astronomical context I don't really see a difference. I wonder for example why the North node is 'Caput' and the South node is 'Cauda'. In Australia it would then seem more probable to reverse them. It's symbolism and perhaps I'm a bit too theoretical/technical .

I suddenly wonder if the English "head or tails" when tossing a coin is related to this