Why not...the Moon's Ruler?

I just put up a similar post asking why only two out of the four Angles seem to be emphasized in chart analysis even though all four of the Angular Houses seem to be held in extra-high esteem -- the unequal treatment doesn't make sense to me...

Similarly, I see that the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant all seem to be hailed as the three most critical elements of a chart (unless other factors conspire to raise some other element to the same lofty heights)...and then most sources and authorities I've studied will advise astrologers to go on and examine the Sun's Ruler and the Ascendant's Ruler for placements, dignities, etc....and yet at this point, the procedure seems to slip, and no one ever mentions the Moon's Ruler.

Maybe I'm just being too much of a completist, but it would seem to me that if three things are considered vital, and then the next step involves looking at the Ruler of one...then a second...why would we stop there? Wouldn't it make just as much sense to continue on with analyzing the Moon's Ruler, too? And I realize that I don't need the approval and authorization of the Astrology community at large to go ahead and just analyze the Moon's Ruler in a given chart myself...I'm just curious if there's any explicit reason why no one seems to hold it forth as a "necessary" step on the same level as the examination of the other two Rulers I just mentioned. Is there some basis in tradition for neglecting the Moon's Ruler? Does anyone reading this have experience with finding that the Moon's Ruler does or does not factor in heavily when studying a given chart? Any input would be welcome here!

Who are you referring to that ignores it?

I look at the ruler of all the planets up to Saturn...

Like Bree'd I'd like to know who you've come across that doesn't consider the Moon's ruler.

From Hellenistic times, it's been an important planet - especially if the Moon is the Sect Light. But even if she is not, her ruler should be considered, as should the rulers of all the other traditional planets.

When I assess temperament (the equivalent of modern day character) the Moon ruler and/or its sign are considered along with its phase. Indeed if anything gets downplayed in the calculation it's the Sun.; Which usually only crops up in terms of the Season of the year. That doesn't mean that the Sun's ruler is not considered elsewhere. Indeed rulership lies very much at the heart of the traditional approach.

How far?

How far down the chain of astrological factors do you need to go in order to gain the level of insight into a chart that you need? Sometimes, quite often in fact, you can grasp the essence of a chart with a simple glance at the Asc., Sun and Moon and maybe one or two other components.

dadsnook2000 said:

How far down the chain of astrological factors do you need to go in order to gain the level of insight into a chart that you need?

Click to expand...

That really depends on how much you have studied Astrology and what experience you have. A beginner, or even an intermediate student might well be reaching for books on the first pass and may not even feel comfortable till they've got down through several layers and find their notes are all pointing in the same one or two directions.

I can certainly remember doing that when I began. Eventually you realise that things like minor aspects are....well, minor and you don't need to look at them to get a good impression of the chart.

Dadsnook2000 said:

Sometimes, quite often in fact, you can grasp the essence of a chart with a simple glance at the Asc., Sun and Moon and maybe one or two other components.

Click to expand...

Well, you've been doing Astrology since Dane Rudhyar were a lad and you take in much more info in a glance than a beginner does in a notebook. As we spend more and more years doing Astrology we tend to carry round a ready made list of quick assessments and associated interpretatations. Things that are obvious to you are not obvious to the beginner.

I never fail to be surprised by the number of beginners who are surprised when I can tell them what time of day a chart was cast, even when that information is not written on it. It's obvious to me, it's obvious to you but it's not something that clicks for quite some time.

That being said, I'll try to take up your point both to illustrate my own comment above and to show that rulers are not an additional level.

I'll use my own chart as an example. Quick glance, no books or look ups. And there's some more advanced stuff that I don't carry round in my head. Just as you don't carry round your entire book (sorry books ) in your head.

Ascendant: Leo. The quick glance shows me that Saturn is right on it (2 degrees difference or so) No other planets in Placidus first house. So, fixed fire sign, ruler is the Sun, no exaltation planet in Leo so I can forget that role entirely. Saturn is in Detriment so it might well give problems and the preliminary conclusion on the Ascendant is going to require modification. I'not sure about anything more at the moment till I've looked at the Sun (which I have to do on your list) Preliminary indication - Choleric sign, Choleric ruler (using a very simple approach) But Saturn is going to turn that down somewhat, as it's melancholic.

Sun: In Libra. This tells me that it's a night chart, so Jupiter is the Triplicity ruler for the Ascendant, if I need it later. Incidentally, the deduction that it's a night chart is not obvious to many beginners or even intermediate students. If Leo is Ascending then Libra is still on the 'night side' of Earth. Libra is the Fall of the Sun, so expect some eccentricity, associated with this placement. Sun's ruler is Venus, which also happens to rule the MC. (oopps you didn't mention the MC, so scrub that). Saturn is the exaltation ruler, and I've previously noticed him sat on the Ascendant, so Saturn is likely to be even more important. Mercury is the Triplicity ruler for the Sun and he happens to be angular in the fourth (as is Venus), which I can see by shifting my glance to the right . Indication here: Libra is the first sign of Autumn, so this is a Melancholic influence (the Sun being interpreted by time of year, or the Earth Hemisphere/Sun cycle) in traditional approaches.

Moon In Aquarius. Two obvious things Moon is ruled by Saturn sat on the Ascendant and a check on it's degree shows a partile opposition. No exaltation ruler, but Mercury is the triplicity ruler for the Air signs by night, as previously noted when looking at the Sun. So Mercury also comes up as being somewhat important as this is his second mention. A closer inspection (two seconds) shows that Mercury, Saturn and the Moon are all in the same degree. So for T square lovers, it's a perfect T square. Moon in Aquarius and Sun in Libra show that the Moon is waxing and has just passed into it's second quarter. Traditionally that puts the Moon down as Choleric. The Moon ruler is Saturn which is a melancholic planet. A lot of texts mention the Almuten of the Moon but as that varies by degree, I don't carry it around in my head but it's likely to be Saturn. It's something to check later.

I've also identified Saturn, Mercury and Venus (in that order) as planets to follow up on and to look at their interrelationship.

OK, just on those three placements alone, I've deduced that there's more choleric in the temperament than anything else but a fair amount of melancholy. No Sanguine and No Phlegm, so a lack of flexibility, uness that shows up later. I know that's too crude but it's enough for a preliminary impression and from experience I know that the preliminary impression usually, but not always, turns out to be a good indicator.

I'm now in a position to write a very brief sketch of temperament (which I won't bore you with )

It's taking me far longer to write that than actually do it. The 'simple' glance and deductions would take a couple of minutes or so. However, if I were a beginner to the tradition, that would take me quite some time and require checking my notes and or source texts.

So yes, we start from those key three indicators but it's not really a 'simple' glance until we gain enough experience to trust what we see and to blend it with experience.

What if my Sun's Ruler is the Sun and my Moon's Ruler is the Moon? It makes sense to me to use the Ascendant, since the Ascendant isn't a planet and therefore doesn't get caught in a loop (Unless you're my mom and have Leo Sun/Leo Asc). But if my Moon is in Cancer and Cancer is ruled by the Moon, which is in Cancer... I'm still learning about all of this.

Kristyjnh said:

What if my Sun's Ruler is the Sun and my Moon's Ruler is the Moon? It makes sense to me to use the Ascendant, since the Ascendant isn't a planet and therefore doesn't get caught in a loop (Unless you're my mom and have Leo Sun/Leo Asc). But if my Moon is in Cancer and Cancer is ruled by the Moon, which is in Cancer... I'm still learning about all of this.

Click to expand...

Rulership implies some sort of limitation. The term 'planet' derives from the Greek for 'wandering', they are 'wandering stars'. It's not an aimless wandering, they have a planned journey through the Zodiac and this involves them visiting places that are not 'home' to them.

There's an argument that the original view of rulership was more akin to a Steward, who would look after a visitor while he stayed in the house. Indeed taking your examples, Leo was described as the house of the Sun and Cancer was described as the house of the Moon. If, using my case, Saturn is in Leo, then Saturn is a guest of the Sun during that time and the Sun will do what he can for Saturn. How much that is depends on the Sun's own condition. Guests don't have to feel comfortable with their lodgings and Saturn certainly doesn't feel comfortable in Leo.

Now to take up your point, the Sun in Leo, or the Moon in Cancer, is at home. Being at home means you don't have to answer to anyone else. You can strew your clothes around, leave the kitchen untidy and no one will challenge you. You can even throw your cake at the wall to see if it sticks. You can't do that if your staying with someone else. Even your best friend might not like you doing some things if you stay with them and you might even be better behaved than you are at home. You're also comfortable with your surroundings, things are just as you want them to be.

A planet at home, can do what it likes, the only restrictions might come from where it finds itself in the chart or from aspects from other planets or (for all but the Sun) it's position relative to the Sun.

Oddly we have taken the Sun's ruler into consideration in this process - If the Sun is in Leo then we expect different behaviour than the Sun in Libra or in Capricorn or any other sign. There is though, less follow up to do as we now know the condition of the Sun's ruler.

Minderwiz said:

Rulership implies some sort of limitation. The term 'planet' derives from the Greek for 'wandering', they are 'wandering stars'. It's not an aimless wandering, they have a planned journey through the Zodiac and this involves them visiting places that are not 'home' to them.

There's an argument that the original view of rulership was more akin to a Steward, who would look after a visitor while he stayed in the house. Indeed taking your examples, Leo was described as the house of the Sun and Cancer was described as the house of the Moon. If, using my case, Saturn is in Leo, then Saturn is a guest of the Sun during that time and the Sun will do what he can for Saturn. How much that is depends on the Sun's own condition. Guests don't have to feel comfortable with their lodgings and Saturn certainly doesn't feel comfortable in Leo.

Now to take up your point, the Sun in Leo, or the Moon in Cancer, is at home. Being at home means you don't have to answer to anyone else. You can strew your clothes around, leave the kitchen untidy and no one will challenge you. You can even throw your cake at the wall to see if it sticks. You can't do that if your staying with someone else. Even your best friend might not like you doing some things if you stay with them and you might even be better behaved than you are at home. You're also comfortable with your surroundings, things are just as you want them to be.

A planet at home, can do what it likes, the only restrictions might come from where it finds itself in the chart or from aspects from other planets or (for all but the Sun) it's position relative to the Sun.

Oddly we have taken the Sun's ruler into consideration in this process - If the Sun is in Leo then we expect different behaviour than the Sun in Libra or in Capricorn or any other sign. There is though, less follow up to do as we now know the condition of the Sun's ruler.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I really appreciate you stepping down to my level and explaining - and when you put it like that it certainly makes sense as to why you would want to look at more than just the Sun, Moon, Asc. One more question, what about Mercury, who rules 2 signs (unless I'm totally wrong)? Does it just have two "homes"? Is it more comfortable in one than the other?

Kristyjnh said:

One more question, what about Mercury, who rules 2 signs (unless I'm totally wrong)? Does it just have two "homes"? Is it more comfortable in one than the other?

Click to expand...

In the traditional rulership scheme, each planet, except the Sun and Moon, rules two signs. And yes that means they've got two homes or 'domiciles' They are usually referred to as 'domicile by day' and 'domicile by night' The diurnal planets are 'happier' in their domiciles by day. So:

Jupiter is better in Sagittarius than its nocturnal domicile of Pisces
Saturn is better in Aquarius than its nocturnal domicile of Capricorn

For the nocturnal planets:

Venus is better in Taurus than its diurnal domicile of Libra
Mars is better in Scorpio than its diurnal domicile of Aries

'Better' here is a qualitative term. More simply diurnal planet prefer their diurnal domiciles and nocturnal planets prefer their nocturnal domiclies. Think of them as 'two home' owners (so planets are fairly rich LOL)

Mercury is a bit odd. Unlike the others Mercury can be either diurnal or nocturnal (if it rises before the Sun then it's diurnal). Mercury is also a hermaphrodite. It can either be masculine or feminine or both (a bit like the Eurovision winner)

However Mercury has it's exaltation in Virgo, so I take it as preferring Virgo, its nocturnal domicile to Gemini its diurnal domicile. In this case it actually is 'stronger'. It's more than just a qualitative point.

Minderwiz said:

In the traditional rulership scheme, each planet, except the Sun and Moon, rules two signs. And yes that means they've got two homes or 'domiciles' They are usually referred to as 'domicile by day' and 'domicile by night' The diurnal planets are 'happier' in their domiciles by day. So:

Jupiter is better in Sagittarius than its nocturnal domicile of Pisces
Saturn is better in Aquarius than its nocturnal domicile of Capricorn

For the nocturnal planets:

Venus is better in Taurus than its diurnal domicile of Libra
Mars is better in Scorpio than its diurnal domicile of Aries

'Better' here is a qualitative term. More simply diurnal planet prefer their diurnal domiciles and nocturnal planets prefer their nocturnal domiclies. Think of them as 'two home' owners (so planets are fairly rich LOL)

Mercury is a bit odd. Unlike the others Mercury can be either diurnal or nocturnal (if it rises before the Sun then it's diurnal). Mercury is also a hermaphrodite. It can either be masculine or feminine or both (a bit like the Eurovision winner)

However Mercury has it's exaltation in Virgo, so I take it as preferring Virgo, its nocturnal domicile to Gemini its diurnal domicile. In this case it actually is 'stronger'. It's more than just a qualitative point.

Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining! *Pulls out pad, takes notes* Very cool. I like looking at charts, but I get kinda overwhelmed when I first look. I'll have to keep checking back here, you guys are so knowledgeable! Thank you for sharing your wisdom here!