[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: "Zodiac" signs and Regulus

Hi, Rene

I thought you or someone said that there was a crowned
nymph in Libra, one in Cancer, and one in Leo.  So
far, that makes three crowned nypmhs, each illustrated
on a page of the Zodiac representing, as you interpret
it, a different "sign".  Why would they all represent
the same star?

To have a star indicated "in Leo" would suggest it was
found in that part of the Zodiac.  A star cannot be
found both in Leo and in Cancer simultaneously. 
Wandering stars appear to move through the signs;
fixed stars by definition do not, (or, to be
technically correct, very slowly--precession).  When
the stars appear to "move" at night, all the other
stars and the signs of the Zodiac move right along
with them.  

So if the star is illustrated as being "in the sign of
Cancer", then it is contradictory to assume that star
represents Regulus, found in the sign of Leo.  As for
Sirius, we have to remember that even if Sirius is
located in the constellation Canis Major, to an
astrologer Sirius is still "in Cancer".  Canis Major
is not a sign of the Zodiac.  

Regulus was known as a "royal star" long before
Copernicus.  There may be a pun in naming it Regulus,
which also means "ruler" (this pun, interestingly,
applies in Latin as well as English).  In very ancient
times, the "ruler" was used to measure the time of
year.  It was also held by the Babylonians to "rule
the heavens".  Proclus wrote: "The Lyon's heart is
called of some men, the Royal Star, for they that are
born under it, are thought to have a royal nativity." 

Fixed stars are said to have the nature of different
planets or mixtures of planets.  Yet in another sense,
as everything found in the sign Leo can be said to be
ruled by the Sun, then everything found in Cancer, in
the same general way, can be said to be ruled by the
Moon.  Are you at all familiar with the concept of
rulership in traditional astrology?    

If your idea about magnitude and the "crowns" is
correct, we need to look for bright stars to indicate
the "crowned nymphs."

The magnitude of Sirius in Cancer is -1.64
The magnitude of Regulus in Leo is 1.35
The magnitude of Spica in Libra is 0.98 variable 

I'm afraid I will need to ask you to explain in a
little more detail why you feel all magnitude 1 stars
will appear twice.  I'm a little confused.  Why would
they?  Or, what about the ones under magnitude one? 
They are still brighter than magnitude 1 stars.  Don't
they count?

Also, I believe you mentioned 7 Leo in your previous
posts.  I wonder how this was derived, and what you
think it might mean.



--- Rene Zandbergen <r_zandbergen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> --- Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I can see why the crowned figure in Leo is thought
> > to
> > be Regulus; but then, why would the crowned figure
> > in
> > Cancer not be Sirius?  Sirius is the brightest
> star
> > in
> > the heavens.  This gives us a crowned figure ruled
> > by
> > the Sun (Regulus) and one ruled by the Moon
> > (Sirius). 
> It could be, but I am not sure why Regulus would
> be related to the Sun and Sirius to the Moon, and
> why they should then have crowns.
> My idea is that the nr of points of the stars in the
> zodiac section relates to stellar magnitude, as
> has been listed by Ptolemy. 9-pointed stars
> would be magnitude-1, 8-pointed stars magnitude
> 2 etc. 
> Now keeping in mind that we have only 10/12 of
> the stars, the numbers seem to indicate that all
> magnitude-1 stars are represented twice. There
> could be various reasons why that could be the
> case, but it is still only guesswork. I guessed that
> the crowns could be reference to Regulus 'little
> king'.
> This is consistent with the fact that both crowned
> nymphs hold a 9-pointed star, i.e. they are both
> magnitude-1. However, this could be spoilt by
> the fact that this name was coined by Copernicus.
> If that is true, then we're back to square one :-)
> Or, the VMs postdates Copernicus, and I'd have to
> call
> it square-zero....
> Cheers, Rene
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list

"I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing, than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list