What does it mean for Regulus to be in Virgo?

1
What does it mean for the fixed star Regulus to have moved into Virgo?

There must have been a time, in the ancient past, when Regulus was in earlier signs, Cancer and then Gemini? Or did it begin in Leo at some point in time?

Yet we associate Regulus with Leo?

IsisTranspluto, the most powerful slow moving outer planet, is currently conjunct Regulus in the first degree of Virgo?

In general, what does it mean when these fixed stars move into other signs? Do they have a time when they begun, in their correct signs?

The fixed star Oculus Capricorni, currently and for a long time now in Aquarius, seems far more Aquarian than Capricornian? Yet it must have originated in Capricorn?

Re: What does it mean for Regulus to be in Virgo?

2
Fleur wrote:What does it mean for the fixed star Regulus to have moved into Virgo?

There must have been a time, in the ancient past, when Regulus was in earlier signs, Cancer and then Gemini? Or did it begin in Leo at some point in time?

Yet we associate Regulus with Leo?
We refer to them as "fixed stars" because, being components of constellations, they remain permanently fixed in their associations with each other (generally speaking, that is - there is movement, but it is extremely slight). So Regulus, the 'King', or 'Heart of the Lion', will always be associated with Leo because its symbolism is expressive of that constellation (any star that is known as 'the heart' of a constellation will always act as a focus for the meaning of the constellation). I don't believe that stars are characterised by signs of the zodiac: it is still "Regulus of Leo" whether it falls into the tropical zodiac sign of Leo or Virgo. If it is conjunct a planet at the beginning of Virgo, that planet is characterised by its constellation symbolism and associations (so a Virgo planet has a streak of Leo brought to it). There was no earlier sign placement because for as long as the constellation Leo has been recognised this star was a part of it.

I would stress that to understand the meaning of any specific star, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the constellations they are part of - there is some information about Leo and the meaning of Regulus on this link:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/leo_myth.html

3
Thanks for your response Deb. I had been intending an extensive reply but I think that is unnecessary now.

The topic of fixed stars as astrological chronocrators is something that has interested me for several years now. It was something Vivian Robson mentioned briefly in his classic book on fixed stars but it hasn't really been explored enough in my opinion.

I am intending to put together a piece of this topic at some stage. I am not sure if it will be an article or work up to something longer at this point. But because of that I am rather keeping my ideas under my hat for now.

Deb wrote:
There was no earlier sign placement because for as long as the constellation Leo has been recognised this star was a part of it.
I fully understand where you coming from on this. However, I take quite a different position. I have done quite a lot of research on Regulus through the tropical signs for several millenia prior to it being Leo. It gives a very useful insight into major historical developments.

After all many astrologers are willing to look at the equinoxes in signs prior to the VP being in sidereal Aries. Yet arguably this was integral to the notion of Aries when horoscopic astrology began. So why not look at fixed stars like Regulus through the tropical signs prior to Leo?

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

4
All four of the so-called Royal Stars, have moved out of the tropical signs with the same names as the constellations. Antares is no longer in Tropical Scorpio. Aldeberan is no longer in Tropical Taurus. Fomalhaut is no longer in Tropical Aquarius and Regulus recently moved to Virgo. So now all these important stars are in mutable signs, not fixed as they were. Whether or not this is significant I can't say. But if it is, the effects, I believe, would be felt very slowly over a long period of time.

5
Tom wrote:
But if it is, the effects, I believe, would be felt very slowly over a long period of time.
In terms of the epic historical trends I agree. However, I have also been tracking historical developments with the stars movement through the Egyptian bounds by precession.

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

6
An interesting observation about Regulus moving from Leo (self-serving) to Virgo (serving others) is Trump deciding to run for President. He can't shake off his life long self-serving personality as he jumps into serving the people of the United States through public office. Anecdotal evidence for sure and his Asc. is Leo so he comes by it naturally, but an interesting image.

Kali

7
Deb wrote:
We refer to them as "fixed stars" because, being components of constellations, they remain permanently fixed in their associations with each other (generally speaking, that is - there is movement, but it is extremely slight). So Regulus, the 'King', or 'Heart of the Lion', will always be associated with Leo because its symbolism is expressive of that constellation...I don't believe that stars are characterised by signs of the zodiac. It is still "Regulus of Leo" whether it falls into the tropical zodiac sign of Leo or Virgo. If it is conjunct a planet at the beginning of Virgo, that planet is characterised by its constellation symbolism and associations (so a Virgo planet has a streak of Leo brought to it)...

I would stress that to understand the meaning of any specific star, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the constellations they are part of...
Diana Rosenberg (Secrets of the Ancient Skies, 2012) claimed that even the small stars have effects. Can we really say that a few bright stars must be considered in light of their constellations, but not the thousands of stars of less luminosity? Wouldn?t we then have to say that a general effect of the constellation Leo combines with tropical Virgo?

It seems artificial to choose a few bright stars as having influence, but then disregard the smaller stars. Though we know that this has been the pattern from earliest horoscopic astrology where only bright stars near the ecliptic were considered along with co-rising stars for different locations.

Is it possible that Rudolf Steiner is correct in saying that the influence of constellations is due to spiritual beings in their vicinities? (Thus the influence of a constellation would extend beyond a few bright stars.) Is this too much of an esoteric and ?superstitious? idea to consider in our modern times? Of course the brightest stars could be considered to be more important, but does the influence of a constellation end with sometimes arbitrarily chosen stars? Luminosity can change over time.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

8
Actually Steiner's clairvoyant view is very similar to India's understanding of the nakshatras which are more or less personifications of deities. Also in Babylonian Star-Lore Gavin White concludes:

"In conclusion, we may restate our initial observation that the symbols on these monuments represent deities with strong astral associations rather than constellation images in their own right. Nevertheless, it must be said that this difference might actually have meant very little to ancient astrologers---as the constellations themselves in their most essential aspect, were also thought to be representations of the gods."
Babylonian Star Lore, Solaria Publications, 2008 (2nd edition), p. 241.

So it seems that we've moved from the constellations being seen as living beings to individual stars that are often divorced from their constellations. I think I remember reading somewhere that Robert Hand said the constellation meanings made more sense to him than the lore of individual stars. But I don't have a reference for that memory.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

9
Kali wrote:
An interesting observation about Regulus moving from Leo (self-serving) to Virgo (serving others) is Trump deciding to run for President. He can't shake off his life long self-serving personality as he jumps into serving the people of the United States through public office. Anecdotal evidence for sure and his Asc. is Leo so he comes by it naturally, but an interesting image.

Kali
I dont really think you can reduce fixed stars astrological significance in mundane terms to such short term factors. They deal with the broader sweep of history not such specific issues.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

10
Therese Hamilton wrote:
It seems artificial to choose a few bright stars as having influence, but then disregard the smaller stars.
I couldn't disagree more! If you look at traditional astrological sources they were very selective in which stars they gave attention to. Sources like Ptolemy, and Anonymous of 379 focus on the 30 brightest stars.

Astronomers have calculated every star visible from Earth to magnitude 6.5, the naked eye limit for most of humanity with 20/20 vision. This assumes a dark moonless sky away from the light polution of cities. The total comes to 9,096 stars visible across the entire sky. That includes both hemispheres. Since we can only see half the celestial sphere at any moment, we necessarily divide that number by two to arrive at 4,548 stars (give or take depending on the season).

I dont see it as logical or practical to give equal status to every star in the sky astrologically. Here are three criteria than can be used to prioritize which stars to focus on:

1 Magnitude: The brighter, higher magnitude stars are naturally more powerful in astrological effect.

2 Proximity to Ecliptic. Stars near the eclipic are important as they interact directly with the 7 visible planets.

3 Stars which have acquired lore/associations across cultures.

So if we are plotting the effects of fixed stars through the tropical signs we necessarily need to adopt a more selective approach.

Of course as you are a sidereal astrologer that rejects the tropical zodiac so I dont expect you to be able to identify with the approach I support.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
So it seems that we've moved from the constellations being seen as living beings to individual stars that are often divorced from their constellations.
Not divorced from their constellational origins. Where are you getting that view from? But stars like Regulus 'the heart of the Lion' or Antares 'The heart of the Scorpion' are the lucida stars of those constellations are the strongest expression of the constellational image.

Having said that I also look at star lore beyond the Babylonian-Greek associations. This can give interesting information on star lore. For example in Indian star lore Regulus was the brightest star in a constellation known as 'The Throne'. Not a Lion but still fitting the Ancient Mesopotamian idea of this star as 'The King star'.

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

11
Mark wrote:Kali wrote:
An interesting observation about Regulus moving from Leo (self-serving) to Virgo (serving others) is Trump deciding to run for President. He can't shake off his life long self-serving personality as he jumps into serving the people of the United States through public office. Anecdotal evidence for sure and his Asc. is Leo so he comes by it naturally, but an interesting image.

Kali
I dont really think you can reduce fixed stars astrological significance in mundane terms to such short term factors. They deal with the broader sweep of history not such specific issues.

Mark
Donald Trump was born with Regulus within a degree of his Asc. and exhibits the manifestation of masculine energy, power and wealth promised by Regulus in Leo. In 2012 he ran for the presidency and again seeming to be using this energy to serve others. Many believe he's only out for himself and to promote his book and business enterprises but as I was thinking about Regulus moving into Virgo I wondered if we are not seeing a glimpse of Regulus power in this sign of service. I believe he sincerely wants to serve our country and bring honor and pride back for the U.S. (p.s. I'm not promoting him for the presidency, just observing his behavior in terms of the changing Regulus.)

It is very early but many will be born with strong Regulus in Virgo configurations. What might that bring humanity? We've seen the results of Regulus in Leo for 600 years, the last few hundred ruled by Mars in the 3rd decan. Now he is in the first decan of Virgo ruled by the Sun. As I said, still early.

Just a thought,

Kali

12
Mark wrote:
Therese Hamilton wrote:
It seems artificial to choose a few bright stars as having influence, but then disregard the smaller stars.

I couldn't disagree more! If you look at traditional astrological sources they were very selective in which stars they gave attention to.

This is true. But these "traditional" sources are relatively recent in terms of mankind's history. As I mentioned, the more ancient general influence of a constellation has been replaced (especially in Hellenistic times) by the supposed influence of a relatively few individual stars. Hellenistic astrologers also related constellational or sign meanings to associated planets.
I don't see it as logical or practical to give equal status to every star in the sky astrologically. Here are three criteria than can be used to prioritize which stars to focus on

1 MagnitudeThe brighter, higher magnitude stars are naturally more powerful in astrological effect.
2 Proximity to Ecliptic. Stars near the eclipic are important as they interact directly with the 7 visible planets.
3 Stars which have acquired lore/associations across cultures.
Going on what Steiner has said, the question of the influence of constellational space versus individual stars may make the question of a star's influence moot. Steiner seems to say that it's the space inhabited by spiritual beings that give the constellations their specific influences rather than the stars. As far as I know he only referenced individual stars once in relation to the Pleiades because (he said) the origin of our solar system came from the Pleiades.
So if we are plotting the effects of fixed stars through the tropical signs we necessarily need to adopt a more selective approach.

Perhaps yes and perhaps no. This is opinion and more or less splitting hairs without supporting research. Diana Rosenberg was a tropical astrologer and claimed the small stars were influential. (But I see her work as imprecise and often confusing. The question of small star influence needs a lot more research.)

The question is really the origin of the supposed characteristics of the constellations. If the influence really does belong to the general area in the form of celestial beings rather than specific stars, then it seems to me that this would be "the elephant in the room" for tropical astrology. If constellational influence is from the brightest stars, then the question goes on the table needing further research.
Therese Hamilton wrote
So it seems that we've moved from the constellations being seen as living beings to individual stars that are often divorced from their constellations.

Not divorced from their constellational origins. Where are you getting that view from?

I didn't say "origins." I said divorced from their constellations. Many supposed influences of the fixed stars have no perceivable relationship to the mythology of their constellations. When we discuss the influence of a fixed star, we don't generally say "...x star in the constellation of...." We simply name the star and its location in a sign of the zodiac. Everyone knows Regulus is in Leo, and Antares in Scorpio. But how many are aware that Toliman (for example) belongs to Centaurus? Or Deneb Kaitos is in Cetus? And so on for the majority of bright stars. We know the star names but don't always link the stars to their constellations.
But stars like Regulus 'the heart of the Lion' or Antares 'The heart of the Scorpion' are the lucida stars of those constellations are the strongest expression of the constellational image.
But a greater number of zodiac constellations don't have those significant stars. And Fomalhaut has been moved out of Aquarius to the Southern Fish.
Having said that I also look at star lore beyond the Babylonian-Greek associations. This can give interesting information on star lore. For example in Indian star lore Regulus was the brightest star in a constellation known as 'The Throne'. Not a Lion but still fitting the Ancient Mesopotamian idea of this star as 'The King star'.

Yes, cross cultural studies of the stars can be very interesting.

The real question is the source of constellational influences. I meant to draw attention to the very ancient view that the constellations were actual spiritual presences (which in modern times Steiner saw clarirvoyantly). If this is true in our present day, then the stars as such may not have much importance for the energies showered on earth from the constellations of the zodiac. The stars would be individual entities which makes a better case for the greater influence of the brightest among them.

The energies connected to the space that spiritual beings are said to inhabit wouldn't be different between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs because they are related to direction in relation to the earth. They can't be turned off in one zodiac or the other.

The original impetus for the zodiac (according to Steiner) came in four directions from the Cosmos into the areas of the four fixed constellations. I've wondered if this is the lost origin of the emphasis on the four winds in Mesopotamian culture? It certainly could be the origin of the emphasis on the Bull, Lion, Scorpion and Waterman through various ages and cultures.

It's interesting that Robert Schmidt insisted on the term "images" for the zodiac rather than sign which wasn't the early meaning of the term for constellations of the zodiac.

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm