Why start with Regulus?

Tzadkiel

Hi everyone,

"Liber T" states that the angels of the pip cards start at the first decan of Leo (5 Wands). Though most other sources start the order of the angels at the first decan of Aries (2 Wands).

I personally prefer the Aries-start ... but working with Golden Dawn based decks and magick I always get irritated or confused to see the (in my humble) opinion "wrong" attributions!

What do you think and is anyone else wondering...?
Maybe someone is able to convince me? (Grigori...?) ;-)
 

ravenest

Hi everyone,

"Liber T" states that the angels of the pip cards start at the first decan of Leo (5 Wands). Though most other sources start the order of the angels at the first decan of Aries (2 Wands).

Hi Tz,
I am away from home at the moment and don’t have access to my books.

Is there a tabulated chart in the "Liber T" document (or GD book) showing that or is it just a passage referring to that? Or is there any related explanation?


I know GD 'sets' their zodiac with 0 degrees Leo at Regulus (and that seems to make sense) and starts their minor cards (2 wands) at (their) beginning of Aries (first decan) - remembering this is all sidereal.

Maybe it has something to do with that setting point?
 

Richard

1. The Book T list of the pips with decan correlations.
2. Book T commentary on the 5 of Wands.
3. Book T commentary on the 2 of Wands.

Note: The angels' names are given in transliterated Hebrew.
 

Attachments

  • decans_bk_t.jpg
    decans_bk_t.jpg
    85.2 KB · Views: 188
  • 5W.jpg
    5W.jpg
    82.7 KB · Views: 186
  • 2W.jpg
    2W.jpg
    61.7 KB · Views: 192

ravenest

Thanks LR

The first chart to me does not show a change, it's just the FIRST LISTING. They start their chart at first decan of Leo (sidereal with Regulus) but they haven’t attributed that to the 2 of wands.

If one is going to make a sidereal construct it has to be set with a star on or near the ecliptic. Some use Vega but the GD chose Regulus (the heart of the lion), probably because of the astrological association with the golden dawn, the Sun and Leo? (see next post)

Looking at the minor cards placement in the decans, Leo is still set at Leo (sidereal) and one could tabulate a chart starting from there and the list would start with the 5 of wands. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the zodiac and the minor arcana starts with the 5 of wands. After all what is the starting point in a circle?

Why did they START their lists there if it isn’t at the beginning of the zodiac? Maybe as a type of ‘spell’; like if you were going to make a talisman with a word around the edge (and say, if that word was Hebrew) and you felt a particular letter had significance you might place that letter at the top of the circle or the ‘beginning’ and arrange the word around it (okay, I’m guessing here).

So not having a clear look (at the moment) nor a memory of it, is the GD angel and attribution list (and Tz’s question) saying the attribution has shifted ( like saying the 2 of wands is now attributed to Leo) or are the attributions the same but the angel attributed to the 5 of wands is at top of list?
 

ravenest

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/stars/Stars_alphabet.htm

see Regulus, might give more insight as to why GD chose this star.

"It may convey royal properties, noble mind, frankness, courage. The importance of this star is accentuated by its nearness to the ecliptic. Its effect is in the best sense that of Jupiter and Mars. On the Ascendant, it will give a courageous and frank character, especially if in conjunction with the Sun, Moon, Jupiter or Mercury. Positioned on the MC, Regulus will raise the native to high positions in life, positions far exceeding the environment the native was born into. On the MC it is not only a good omen for a military career, but also for careers connected with the public, such as lawyers, civil servants, bankers and the clergy, especially if Regulus is also in conjunction with the Sun or Moon or with a benefic stellar body. According to tradition, Regulus conjunct MC will bring with it connections with rulers, honorable people or famous people. .....". [Fixed Stars and Their Interpretation, Elsbeth Ebertin, 1928, p51-52.]

The top of a list is sorta a midheaven position ... ?
 

Aeon418

I remembered seeing this answer somewhere else. So I did a quick copy n' paste.
I agree with Eshelman. The sequence beginning with Regulus presented in Liber T is just a way to catalogue the cards.

Jim Eshelman said:
A couple of reasons. One, Mathers was an early advocate of a form of the Sidereal zodiac, though he was about 5° off on the correct starting point - he thought Regulus marked 0° Leo, whereas it's really at 5° Leo. In any case, he thought this marked the beginning of the actual zodiac.

But also, this allowed the discussion of the decanates to begin with a Saturn-ruled decanate. That's really no more than an organizational device for the monograph, of course.

The sequence has no relevance for the Tarot itself - it's just a catalogue device. The natural sequence through the Tarot (for tracking its underlying Story) is: Aleph through Tav, then Knight (= King) of Wands through Princess of Disks, then Ace of Wands through 10 of Disks (in the sequence: all Wands, then all Cups, etc.).
 

ravenest

I remembered seeing this answer somewhere else. So I did a quick copy n' paste.
I agree with Eshelman. The sequence beginning with Regulus presented in Liber T is just a way to catalogue the cards.

...Ummm yeah, gota start somewhere ... again where is the beginning point of a circle? Starting at Aries is also 'just a way to catalogue the cards'.

Jim Eshelman said:
A couple of reasons. One, Mathers was an early advocate of a form of the Sidereal zodiac, though he was about 5° off on the correct starting point - he thought Regulus marked 0° Leo, whereas it's really at 5° Leo. In any case, he thought this marked the beginning of the actual zodiac.

So why is -5° Regulus the 'start' of Leo? To include the entire constellation of Leo? That won’t work either in a sidereal system i.e. start marking off 30° segments (from Jim's point) and see where that gets you, especially as you go through Libra and Scorpio. Jim offers no explanation as to why Mathers chose Regulus or why -5° Regulus is the start of Leo. Jim just seems to be making statements without explanations (or maybe he does explain elsewhere outside THIS quote)? Mathers didn’t just draw the name out of a hat. Look at the influence attributed to Regulus.

Jim Eshelman said:
But also, this allowed the discussion of the decanates to begin with a Saturn-ruled decanate. That's really no more than an organizational device for the monograph, of course.

But an 'organisational device with a reason; there is a system where it is believed that the 'cosmic' or 'constellational' or 'stellar' energies are then picked up by Saturn (traditionally the planet 'furthest out' or 'closest to the stars) and their energy and was passed on through the Solar system eventually to the Moon then the earth. So it could be for that reason as well (as the Leo Sun relationship) and Regulus being one of the four main stars (and what Regulus represents in that context).

Jim Eshelman said:
"The sequence has no relevance for the Tarot itself - it's just a catalogue device.

It may well have no significance to the Tarot just as attributing angels based on letters in an order in a sentence in a Jewish Scripture that even some Rabbis now say was written up as fiction i.e. not some Holy Word of God ... [as I heard a Rabbi say (sorry, can’t remember his name but it is in a doco called 'Kingdom of David')] ... 'Well, it may be just a story - but it’s a great story, it doesn’t matter if it is 'true' or not, it’s the message that counts and that message has helped the Jewish people to .... (Etc.)"

But if one is going to get into that stuff and its Tarot attribution (whether it is relevant or not is surely up to the individual) and why it is that way it might help to understand why that device was set up that way and not another." It's just a catalogue device" seems a bit of an oversimplification to me.

I think it is a catalogue device (just as listing the beginning with Aries is, but that starts the listing with Mars, and taking the above idea re Saturn into account ... why start with Mars) but maybe it is a device that was constructed for specific reasons (like some of the above)?
 

ravenest

Anyway, still not clear on my original question; is it the point of starting the listings with the angels or is it ...

... but working with Golden Dawn based decks and magick I always get irritated or confused to see the (in my humble) opinion "wrong" attributions!
...

that the GD changed the attributions of the angels (as I havent seen the angels listing) annd they are 'wrong'?
 

ravenest

Also perhaps making Regulus 0 degrees at the very start of the zodiac is also like setting Regulus at the ascendant? (see my post # 4 above )