Has anyone heard of this decan system?

1
Hi everyone, first post here in Skyscript! I have been studying astrology for several years now and I'm glad to have found this place.

Although most of what I've learnt comes from Dr. Adolf Weiss' book Astrología Racional (Spanish version of his books Bausteine der Astrologie), I've read many other books on astrology, but I couldn't find any mention of a decan system that a friend swears by: instead of the commonly used "modern" decans in which the first ten degrees correspond to the sign itself, the second to the following sign of the same element, and the third to the other sign, he was taught by his astrology teacher that the first decan of each sign corresponds to the first sign of the triplicity, the second to the second and the third to the third. In other words, the first decan of all fire signs is linked to Aries and thus ruled by Mars, the second decan of all fire signs corresponds then to the Sun/Leo and the third to Jupiter/Sagittarius.

From what I've read you're extremely knowledgeable folks and I was wondering if you have heard of this array before, about its source and logic. In my experience, they seem to work better at describing the houses and planets in them than the other modern system, so naturally I'm curious.

Fraternally,
sr_sedna

2
Below is an account of the 'modern' decanate system, which might be of interest.

Margaret E Hone's The modern textbook of astrology
(1951, revised ed July 1967, L.N. Fowler & Co ltd, London).
Decanates or decans
These are divisions of each sign into three. They have no names other than those of the planet ruling them. Thus:-- The Leo Decanate of Aries
The first 10° of each sign are said to be the most emphatically of its own nature and are ruled by its own ruling planet. The next 10° are sub-ruled by the planet ruling the next sign in the same triplicity. The final 10° are sub-ruled by the next in the order of the triplicity.
Note the association of the decans with signs, which I have yet to encounter from another source.

3
srsedna and edward,

this is something i learned way back when i was first learning astrology in the 70's.. so, my guess is it is a modern astro concept... however in my studies on indian astrology i notice the drekkana or D3 chart gives the same results...D is for divisional.. D3 divides up each sign into 3 signs - 3rd divisional chart or D3!.. any planet in the first 10 degrees of the sign, will be in the same sign in a D3 or drekkana chart... any planet in the 2nd 10 degrees - from 10.00-19 degrees 59 minutes will land in the 2nd sign of the same element - any planet from 20- 29 degrees 59 minutes will land in the 3rd sign of the same element.

if you start from aries - aries, leo, sag.. if you start from leo - leo, sag, aries.. if you start from sag - sag, aries, leo... same deal for all 4 elements...

so, here is an event chart for right now in new york city... chart is sidereal zodiac.

Image


looking at the chart, can you figure out which sign everything will be in? the easy ones are any planet in the first 10 degrees of any sign.. they will be in the same sign as they are in, in the above chart... any planet 10 degrees or more, will be in the 2nd sign of the element they are in, in the above chart... mercury, venus and moon will all be in the same sign in the chart below as they are in the chart above...

take a look at where uranus is at - 10 aries 54 minutes.. it will be in the next sign - leo,in the D3 chart, as opposed to aries in the D1 chart... the ascendant at 14 libra 40 will be in aquarius in D3 chart... see the chart below... this decan system is the very same as the drekkana chart used in indian astrology..

Image


maybe you want to read up on drekkana charts and what they mean in indian astrology??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drekkana

in harmonic charts, the 3rd harmonic is similar but not the same... if you want to understand the differences, you would have to have an astro software program to see how it unfolds in a similar way, but not exactly the same, or as outlined in the system that you have asked about...

cheers james

4
Hi Edward,

Thank you; yes, that is the 'modern' decanate system that most usually gets mentioned. The one I'm trying to find a source about, though, is slightly different: the first ten degrees of each sign are related to the first sign of the same element, the second ten degrees to the second sign, and the third to the third. In this way, the decans for Aries, Taurus, Gemini and Cancer are exactly the same as in the popular modern system, but from Leo onward they are different: the first ten degrees of Leo will correspond, again, to Mars/Aries, the middle decan will belong to Leo itself, and the third decan to Sagittarius, and so on. In this way, planets in trine will usually be under the same decan ruler (e.g. 24 Cancer and 24 Scorpio would both be Neptune decans).

Fraternally,
sr_sedna

5
Alan Leo introduced the commonly used 'modern' or sign based decan system. It was taken from Jytosh or Hindu astrology.

When I get more time I will post further on the different systems of decans.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

6
thanks mark,

that makes sense, especially based on my realization of the direct connection with the drekkana divisional chart as mentioned above..

good to see you back!
james

7
Mark wrote:Alan Leo introduced the commonly used 'modern' or sign based decan system.
Leo's "Practical astrology" (1910) also divides each of the decans into halves of 5 degrees each. He assigns each half a 'polarity'-- positive or negative. Is this taken from Jytosh as well? [/quote]

8
Edward White wrote:
Leo's "Practical astrology" (1910) also divides each of the decans into halves of 5 degrees each. He assigns each half a 'polarity'-- positive or negative. Is this taken from Jytosh as well?
No, dividing each decan in half isn't part of Indian astrology. But there must have been a time in western astrology when this division was considered. In Arcana of Astrology W.J. Simmonite (c. 1800-1860) has a chapter on each five degrees of he zodiac that he relates to the fixed stars in each division. He calls these divisions "faces," which was the Hellenistic term for the decan divisions.

I have a reprint of this book from 1977 (Symbols and Signs Publishers) which lists the original publication date of 1847. Kessinger Legacy Reprints has published Simmonite's original book which lists these divisions, The Complete Arcana of Astral Philosophy or Celestial Philosopher.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

9
James, I'm happy to see you posting sidereal charts here and there on Skyscirpt because I think we've reach the time in the 21st century when we need to be seriously considering the zodiac question. But many astrologers continue to misunderstand the meaning of sidereal signs. So I'm posting a reminder here.

The relationship of signs in the two zodiacs was well understood by first generation astrologers of the Fagan school. For example, Rupert Gleadow wrote in Your Character in the Zodiac (1968):
People fail to realize that sidereal Cancer cannot possibly have the same character as the old tropical Cancer. For a person’s character is not going to change just because he is classified under a different sign. And the fact is that tropical Leo and sidereal Cancer are two different ways of referring to the same part of the sky, so obviously the character of the people born under that piece of sky must be the same, whether we label them Leo or Cancer.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

10
therese,

i am not advocating for any particular zodiac at this point! in fact, i am an equal rights kinda guy who thinks it is possible to entertain both coexisting! i guess i am weird that way!~ maybe in a few years i will become more fanatic about one or the other, but i hope not!!!

12
Therese Hamilton wrote:James, I'm happy to see you posting sidereal charts here and there on Skyscirpt because I think we've reach the time in the 21st century when we need to be seriously considering the zodiac question. But many astrologers continue to misunderstand the meaning of sidereal signs. So I'm posting a reminder here.

The relationship of signs in the two zodiacs was well understood by first generation astrologers of the Fagan school. For example, Rupert Gleadow wrote in Your Character in the Zodiac (1968):
People fail to realize that sidereal Cancer cannot possibly have the same character as the old tropical Cancer. For a person’s character is not going to change just because he is classified under a different sign. And the fact is that tropical Leo and sidereal Cancer are two different ways of referring to the same part of the sky, so obviously the character of the people born under that piece of sky must be the same, whether we label them Leo or Cancer.
More of a general observation that I think is pertinent to what you have to say here. The disparity between the zodiacs is easily observable if you have followed over the years as Western astrology has spiraled downward to become ever more "sign" oriented to the point that all of the sign descriptions become hazier and overlapping in an ever-deepening psychobabble melange that can account for almost anything. Just pick and choose.

I read a lot from contemporary western astrologers fitting planet meanings to the sign. Signs and houses do not define the planet IMO.

There are exceptions in contemporary western literature to be sure. (A bit older than contemporary actually.) Stephen Arroyo, Rob Hand, and Liz Greene come to mind, but on the whole, that's what I think for what little it is worth.

Bit of a rant I'm afraid... I could defend my POV somewhat if anyone is truly interested. On the other hand, wouldn't it actually be a waste of time?
The preacher preaching to the choir.
A voice crying in the zodiacal wilderness.
Does a sidereal tree falling in the tropical forest make a sound?
????
???????????