Leo is the fifth sign of the zodiac, its ruler is the sun. Leo cannot help but be regal and is therefore associated with royal families, royalty in general, as well as celebrity.
With the sun being ruler of Leo, this sign likes to shine, be the centre of attention just like the sun itself.
But if you think Leo is at all overbearing, just remember how generous he or she can be too. After all, Leo is the sign of ‘love, luck and life’. It’s about experience, enjoyment, taking part. Sport! And the fun of children.
Most especially Leo loves to enjoy – and we could all do with enjoyment right now.
Speaking as a long time astrologer, I get frustrated by the trivialising of this ancient subject, which is often simply referred to as ‘star signs‘.
Recently we had the reemergence of that ‘old chestnut’ regarding the supposed 13th sign of the zodiac, namely Ophiuchus. For me and many astrologically minded people, this is wrong. The zodiac, the equal division of the ecliptic into twelve, that’s the apparent path of the sun around us, is only nominally related to the constellations.
There was a time when astrology and astronomy were the same sacred science. There was the matter of observation, followed by prognostication and prediction.
A Royal Practice
The scientist-priests of Babylon were some of the earliest known exponents of this noble function, which was propagated by many a royal family over the millennia from ancient China to Britain.
This broadly remained the same until the so called ‘Enlightenment’ of the 18th century. Astronomy, the observation of celestial phenomena was finally divorced from astrology, the latter being largely demonised and ridiculed ever since.
Triviality and Bifurcation
Whilst it is true the present day astrological community might not do itself any favours by giving too much credence to sun sign astrology to ‘make a living’, it is also true that the practice of astrology has bifurcated to an alarming degree, a bit like the church into a myriad denominations.
Although I would not like to see more control of astrological ‘tenets’, per se, I do think there is a need for simplification and tradition being reintroduced. At the moment I believe it is up to every individual astrologer to self assess.
So is astrology a science? Yes it is – but it is also an interpretive art based upon what should be a sacred science. May the sacred return to us all – and soon.
A little while ago that old chestnut about Ophiuchus being the thirteenth sign of the zodiac appeared all over the press once again.
The story seems to come around periodically in our ‘lowest common denominator’ society, which apparently seeks to deliberately trivialise (and confuse) virtually every issue, especially during the summer.
Each time the story is pitched in a different way to make it look as though it’s new, when in fact it’s old.
Let’s be clear – the twelve signs of the zodiac are the equal 30 degree divisions of the ecliptic, the apparent path of the sun around us.
Constellations are different from Zodiac signs
The signs from Aries to Pisces are not the same as the constellations, the latter, though they lie behind the path of the sun on its journey, are of unequal length – and yes, there are thirteen constellations which intrude into this path, one of which is Ophiuchus, the Serpent Bearer.
When we think about it, twelve is a natural division. For example, the planet Jupiter takes almost twelve years to return to the same position. That means he spends roughly one year in each sign. I think this is significant.
Whilst there are some astrologers who incorporate Ophiuchus into their work these days, I do not subscribe to it for the reasons outlined above. To each his own, as they say, and keep a clear mind.
The bottom line is that I think the waters are muddied enough already and nature’s symmetry truly is something to behold – and uphold.
Ciscography 