Garth Allen on the Lunes

[Guest guest]

I learned something today. I had not realized that the sidereal framework

is viewed as 12 great 'Lunes' converging at the poles of the ecliptic

(around which Draco wraps his tail.)

 

There is a very neat planisphere available which you can turn to observe

how the poles of the equator revolve around the fixed pole of the ecliptic

(precession). This makes the picture of the sidereal zodiac very clear

compared to the moving Tropical zodiac. For some reason I get a thrill

watching the precession of the equinoxes through thousands of years on this

little hand planisphere (10 inches in diameter). (Learning Technologies,

Inc. 1-800-537-8703.

 

The article below shows how Garth Allen explained the sidereal framework.

http://www.magee.demon.co.uk/extracon.txt

 

Therese

 

" Many Things, " 3/71 A.A.

Getting Things Straight

 

LETTER 11/25/70, Fort Dodge, Iowa:

 

I found the scathing review of

" ASTROLOGY 14 " very interesting. I have not read that book, and Garth

Allen has eliminated both the necessity and the desire to do so.

 

I am a mere novice at astrology and a tropicalist at that, so I know

you will understand if the question I am about to bring up would be

elementary or obvious to others more advanced in their studies.

 

I have an old star map printed by ten National Geographic magazine,

December 1957. Across the bottom is a map of the ecliptic through the

constellational zodiac, which quite clearly shows the Sun as moving

only through the traditional 12 constellations with Cetus and Ophiuchus

nowhere to be seen.

 

Mr. Allen, National Geographic and I all agree that the Sun does not

traverse these two constellations [Cetus and Ophiuchus]. Then I read

astronomical

descriptions of the dates when the visible planets moved through

various constellations, and in this the constellation Ophiuchus is

definitely mentioned!

 

I have always thought that the siderealist viewed the constellations

from the same point of view as the astronomer. If this is true, how

does sidereal astrology deal with, say, Saturn in Ophiuchus? In

anything I've ever read on sidereal astrology I have never seen any

reference to the planets being anywhere but in the traditional

constellations. Please enlighten me and other faithful readers via

your excellent publication.

 

GARTH ALLEN'S COMMENT:

You have hit onto the commonest misunderstanding about

the sidereal zodiac. The term 'constellation'

is used by an astrologer only to distinguish the dozen zodiacal zones,

which are exactly 30 degrees of longitude in width, from the word

'sign' which through broad usage has come to be more closely associated

with the tropical scheme (even though the word 'sign' itself is clearly

sidereal in derivation!).

 

***Sidereally speaking, a sign is a great lune***

representing one-twelfth of the entire celestial sphere, with the horns

of the lune converging at the ecliptic poles--and therefore has nothing

directly to do with the classical star-outlined figure straddling the

ecliptic which gave the zone its name.

 

Modern astronomers have allocated various areas on the celestial

sphere to " constellations " roughly grouped according to tradition but

using the equatorial system for their boundaries; right ascension and

declination are more convenient coordinates for astronomical purposes.

 

In this nonastrological set-up, the modern boundaries of Ophiuchus and

Cetus do protrude into what is called the " zodiacal belt " even though,

as far as astrologers are concerned, the zodiac should never be thought

of as a belt or band or discrete width centered on the ecliptic.

 

For instance, no matter how far from the ecliptic they may be, each of the

stars of the Little Dipper--including Polaris itself--has a zodiacal

longitude and latitude, expressible in either tropical or sidereal

terms.

 

To repeat for emphasis, the 12 zones of the sidereal zodiac are each

30 degrees in extent and are absolutely independent of individual stars

and the artifices of star lore. The fiducial line, technically

speaking, is determined by a perpendicular drawn to the ecliptic from

the solar apex in absolute space; it is only a welcome happenstance

that certain of the brighter stars have longitudes close to convenient

divisions in the sidereal signs, such Aldebaran at 15 degrees Taurus,

Antares at 15 degrees Scorpio, Alcyone and Regulus at 5 degrees of

Taurus and Leo, respectively, and the traditional " tail stars " in the

last two degrees of the sidereal divisions they belong to.

 

[END]