skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Aquarius
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:01 pm    Post subject: Aquarius Reply with quote

Hi Rob Hand told me that the description of Aquarius personality has been changed to suit Uranus. There is no such thing as iconoclastic rebellious Aquarius.
In fact the boks by Evengeline Adams refer to Aquarius as level headed, friendly, altruistic,selfless, serene.
whatdo you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gem



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 954

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb's description of Aquarius is excellent : ww.skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html

As it's a human sign, Aquarians have social grace and ease.
To quote a passage from the above link,
Quote:
Traditional sources refer to it as a 'sanguine sign', as all the air signs are, indicating that it is underwritten by healthy attributes of grace, charm and attractiveness, and has no leanings towards crude, violent or unpleasant extremes. Since they tend towards a position of balance, Aquarians are generally seen as popular, polite and sociable members of society. They offer harmonising influences upon groups, especially with their penchant for bringing cool reason to heated debates and thus steering attention away from personal and emotional trysts to communal and intellectual problems that concern and unite us all.


Also many modern astrologers tend to ignore that Aquarius is a fixed sign.


Last edited by Gem on Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ed F



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 301
Location: Ipswich, MA USA

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That all fits my Dad, the (somewhat conservative) Aquarius. I go with the element/mode combination approach myself, rather than the repeatedly-repeated folklore. when it comes to signs. (Oh OK, I admit I go to principles over chanting in general).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb's description of Aquarius here on skyscript and her article in the Mountain Astrologer on Aquarius do paint quite a different picture to the rebel rebel image modern astrology so adores. As a sanguine, fixed and humane sign Aquarius had a fairly good reputation for being charming, sophisticated and not brutal or fierce like the so called 'bestial' signs in the medieval and late renaissance astrology.

On the other hand Aquarius seems to have have been through quite a few changes in its image throughout the centuries. In Greek times is was a much less well perceived sign.

Take a look at this description of Aquarius from one of the leading astrologers of the second century AD:

Quote:
''Those so born are malicious and haters of their own families, unchangeable, single-minded, deceitful, treacherous, those who conceal everything, misanthropists, impious, accusers, betrayers of opinion and truth, begrudging, concerned with trifles, at times generous through the efflux of water, incontinent. (Vettius Valens, The Anthology, Book 1, pg 15. Translated by Robert Schmidt.)


He clearly had a bad time with an Aquarian somewhere! More seriously take a look at this link for the perspective of Greek Astrology from Curtis Manwaring on his website:

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/zodiac/aquarius.html

He states there:

Quote:
Valens seems to be coming from the opinion that Aquarius is worse (even than Capricorn) because it is seasonally more difficult than early winter. These attributions are coming solely from a cold Saturn. In modern times, who would have called an aquarian a misanthrope! This may be an extreme example coming from a time in which reality had a different pronoia. Or it may be truer than most would want to think. It seems to me that those natives with a strong Aquarian or Saturn emphasis seem to have a corporate mentality, especially if born during the day. They seem to be emotionally detached, but dedicated to the greater good of society as a whole. Question is, who are they to say what is good for the whole? When Aquarius acts with dictatorial power, some very dangerous consequences can result, read on...


As an Aquarian I know which interpretation I prefer!

I certainly agree for every 'way out' Aquarian there are loads more who fit the Saturnian image. No doubt any eccentricities could be explained in those minority cases by a prominent Uranus or Neptune or some other peculiarity of the chart.

A lot of Aquarians I have discussed this with don't like hearing this though. They cling to the mad, way out , rebellious stereotype even when the evidence is flying in their face. I guess its much less fun being what my friend calls an A-squarian!

The progressive reputation of Aquarius could be explained by its outgoing and positive attitude to engaging with society. Both Saturn signs aim to engage with society of course but their expression is totally different. As a masuline and humane sign Aquarius puts its focus more on society as a whole rather than the more introvert focus of Capricorn on its own career/material advancement.

Also when we are describing the Sun here the self/ego is less easily expressed in the individual due to its detriment so that there is a natural inclination to join together with others in groups etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gem



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Posts: 954

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark
Thanks for your input. It`s good have perspectives from Aquarians themselves, straight from the horse`s mouth Smile

Quote:
They cling to the mad, way out, rebellious streotype...

Lala Happy It certainly sounds cool to have Uranus as ruler rather than the dour Saturn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting link.
How accurate do you find your chart using the intrepretation with Hellenic Whole house signs as shown in that site?

thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Woodwater,

Quote:
Interesting link. How accurate do you find your chart using the intrepretation with Hellenic Whole house signs as shown in that site?


If you are asking about actual chart delineation I think the emotionally detached image of Aquarius is quite accurate ( fitting in with Saturn rulership) and this can cause corresponding relationship issues. However, I am not going to sign up to the full blown Valens interpretation any time soon!

To be honest my main focus is 17th century or medieval. I feel I have so much to learn there I am not really in a position to give a really informed view on the validity or not of hellenistic techniques.

I am a magpie nonetheless and do find many hellenistic ideas interesting. I am not sure I could ever embrace that approach completely though.

I have a lot of the texts from the hellenistic era and a few books-James Crane especially. However, I am not sure I want to abandon Placidus/Regio houses for whole sign in natal work or horary respectively.

I have looked at charts by whole sign but I am not convinced it produces any better results in practice.

One of my things is that I go along with the more naturalistic astrology established by Ptolemy that is sceptical of astrology not based on visual astronomical reality. Morin the great 17th century French astrologer took a very similar view. Hence I work a lot with fixed stars but I have never warmed to the lots/parts that much. I will use them especially the POF but I don't get that excited by them. I am afraid Robert Zoller's book on the parts did nothing for me in that respect.

However, the mainstream hellenistic tradition ( excluding Ptolemy) used the lots/parts extensively. I think to be a real practitioner of this approach you need to use the lots/parts a considerable amount.

I am more impressed by other hellenistic ideas such as diurnal and nocturnal planets, oriental/occidental planets, triplicity rulerships ( Dorothean not Ptolemy's) etc.

When it comes down to it I see the planets and stars as the heart of astrology not the houses or lots. I therefore identify with the 17th century approach used by Lilly and others that decide aspect orbs through the planets involved not the houses.

In the hellenistic approach you generally only have aspects within whole sign houses and seldom across sign boundaries ( although there are exceptions). In modern astrology of course we have the idea of developed from Kepler that aspect types determine orbs.

I would be reluctant to apply a whole sign approach to horary that didn't allow aspects to cross the sign barrier. I have seen far too many charts contradicting rigid whole sign aspects. I give credence to the real sky before any astrological theory dividing it up.

However, when you have outstanding astrologers like Robert Hand using all the hellenistic tools in the box and saying they are spot on who I am to disagree? I saw him demonstrate how Bill Gates chart fitted in with the part of wealth once and it seemed astounding. He projected the chart from the POF rather than ASC which was a common hellenistic technique.

Like so many issues in astrology I think its about preference and what feels comfortable for you rather than truth vs falsehood.

As for interpretations of the signs I see where Valens is coming from. As a sign ruled by cold malefic Saturn Aquarius is hardly going to have a really positive image. Although I think Valenns is rather an extreme example. I have a theory the explanation for his very negative view is partly seasonal too though. The stars in Aquarius in ancient Babylon ( and India, Arabia , China) marked the cold, rainy season which brought heavy rains and often flooding. This could be disastrous to the Babylonians and Chinese. For the Arabs and Indians on the other hand it was most welcome.

Although the early Greek image of Aquarius ( derived from Babylonian tradition) was not so positive it was the Arabs who re-transmitted astrology back to the medieval west and they had a far more positive image of this part of the sky. Rain in the middle of Arabia is clearly a welcome sight! Hence one of the main stars in the constellation of Aquarius 'Sadalsuud was called 'The lucky of the lucky'. I believe the more positive image of Aquarius that developed in the medieval and renaissance era was as a result of a more positive Arabic perspective on the sign. Hence in the medieval west more focus is given to sign's sanguine and humane nature rather than its association with nasty malefic Saturn. On the other hand Scorpio got a bad reputation in traditional sources from the Greeks right up until the 17th century. Clearly Aquarians had a better PR department working for them than poor Scorpio.

The Arabic approach was originally based on signs in the sidereal zodiac ( and lunar mansions before that) involving fixed stars but it seems to have went on to influence western tropical astrologers view of the sign in the medieval west.

Similarly Aquarius has a more positive image in Vedic astrology. For the Chinese though the stars of Aquarius fall in a less fortunate lunar mansion. The flooding of the great Chinese river systems brought many deaths so were often feared.

Just a theory I am researching at the moment but I think it has validity.


Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:
The Arabic approach was originally based on signs in the sidereal zodiac ( and lunar mansions before that) involving fixed stars but it seems to have went on to influence western tropical astrologers view of the sign in the medieval west.


This is what I’ve been thinking all way through this discussion. If you read Valens’ sign descriptions (The Anthology, Book 1, Concerning the Nature of the Twelve Zoidia, Project Hindsight edition) there’s a lot of surprising words for a modern time tropical astrologer. Gemini is described as “effeminate”, “poetic” and “capable of household management”, “those who receive trust” and “prudent”. Cancer is described as “public”, “popular”, “fond of repute”, “theatrical”, “cheerful”, “fond of pleasure and entertaining” who “ends up wandering and sojourning abroad”. Leo despises flattery, Libra is “good and just though malicious”, desires the goods of others and lives irregularly. Sagittarius is enigmatical, authoritative and kingly, critical, a lover of reputation and notable. Capricorn is licentious, fond of laughter, fickle, mischievous, shameful, and makes bad mistakes. Aquarius is effeminate, deceitful, concealing everything, betraying opinion and truth, begrudging, concerned with trifles, at times generous through the efflux of water and entirely wet. And last but not least Pisces is full of eruptions, restless, rough, sociable, a cause of wandering, erotic, licentious and popular.

These descriptions might make better sense if we changed the signs to their following ones: effeminate, poetic, prudent Cancers, capable of household matters; public, popular, theatrical, cheerful Leos who are fond of repute, pleasure and entertaining; Virgos who despise flattery; good and just though malicious Scorpios living irregularly; enigmatical but authoritative and critical Capricorns; licentious, fickle, mischievous Aquarians who make bad mistakes; effeminate, deceitful and concealing Pisceans who are concerned with trifles and generous at times; and finally Arians who are full of eruptions, restless, rough, erotic and licentious.

This is explained by precession, the stars that belonged in Pisces in Valens’ time, belong now mostly to tropical Aries etc. So it seems that at least Valens’ descriptions make more sense on a sidereal zodiac.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

very interesting,thank you
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Papretis,

Very interesting indeed! I don't have a copy of the Anthology yet but its on my wish list. Your quotation does raise some real issues about the associations of the signs and the use of sidereal zodiac in early astrology. Most of those sign associations you list do seem more like the following sign.

However, the odd thing is that the gaps between the sidereal and tropical zodiac were not that large in the time of Valens. If I recall correctly James Holden in his 'History of Horoscopic Astrology' suggests the so called 'Alexandrian zodiac' was about 5-6 degrees from the tropical zodiac in the period of Valens.

It seems highly likely this was a sidereal zodiac. While the birth of tropical astrology is usually attributed to the publication of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos it seems that his ideas were not widely known by his contemporaries. Indeed the complete acceptance of a tropical over a sidereal zodiac may not have really taken hold until the reintroduction of astrology to the Latin west through the Arabs.

In the time of Ptolemy and afterwards , most astrologers were more familiar with his 'handy tables' to assist calculation of planetary positions than the Tetrabiblos or indeed the Almagest. Firmicus however in the 4th century AD clearly was aware of Ptolemy's astrological ideas.

Increasingly writers such as Robert Schmidt, Robert Hand and James Crane suggest that Ptolemy was an idiosyncratic astrologer outside the mainstream of hellenistic astrology represented by astrologers like Valens.

For example he rejected the use of lots/parts and seems to have little time for Katarchic astrology.

If we accept that Ptolemy's ideas are not necessarily representative of mainstream hellenistic astrology we are clearly going to have to re-evaluate our attitude to the signs in the light of these apparently contradictory early sources. However, as the whole medieval and renaissance astrology was built on a foundation based on Ptolemy that process may not be at all easy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:31 am    Post subject: Re: Aquarius Reply with quote

woodwater wrote:
Hi Rob Hand told me that the description of Aquarius personality has been changed to suit Uranus. There is no such thing as iconoclastic rebellious Aquarius.
In fact the boks by Evengeline Adams refer to Aquarius as level headed, friendly, altruistic,selfless, serene.
whatdo you think?


Uranus's co-rulership is certainly one of the more interesting puzzles of modern astrology, mainly due to it's being a fixed sign.

However it demonstrates perhaps the central problem of regarding traditional astrology/ies, by this I mean pre 20th century, as still useful as a complete system(s).

Namely we are aware today how complex people are and how we live in an increasingly complex world. (i'm speaking in general terms). If you look at Psychology from Freud onwards to today we find people to be markedly more complex than the earliest psychologists could have envisaged. Just think of developments in Cognitive Science and Neuro-Psychology.

We can see the relationship of Uranus to Aquarius today because we have the language to do so.

I'm often puzzled why people cling on to pre 20th century astrology so religously, when the same folks don't do the same with other 'sciences'. If i have a headache i take a pill, i don't want someone drilling a hole in my head, bleeding me......

It's not as though they had any success in prediciting anything more so than you'd expect by chance. After all if they had then no amount of religous sanctioning would have caused it's various disappearances.

Let's see what Project Hindsight reveals. Currently about 10% of Hellenistic notions have stood the test of time, will this increase by more than a few percent? If you look at Freud about 25% of his ideas look pretty strong, 50% look far fetched and the other 25% the jury's out. In another hundred years their usefulness/application will be further reduced. Freud, Ptolemy, Greene... are all genius's of their time.

Why are traditional astrologers, in the main, obliviousess to, or in denial of, the last 1-2,500 years of human evolution? It's a shame because some of the best astrological minds just need to start looking at Uranus as being as fundamental to the Aquarian mentality as Saturn to experience this logical epiphany.
________
SIKHISM ADVICE


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1392

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Robin, the only shame is that you don´t understand the subject that you criticize.
_________________
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
epurdue



Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 327

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since Robin seems so sure of herself, I suppose she can answer the following questions:

1. How are people more complex today than in earlier times?
2. How were attributes assigned to the 7 original planets?
3. How were attributes assigned to Uranus?
4. Why is Aquarius better suited to Uranus than Saturn.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
###



Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 1380

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The point regarding the complexity of the modern world could possibly be used in an argument demonstrating the [alleged] folly of excluding Uranus from astrology, but the post as a whole is completely ineffective in arguing that Uranus should have the domicile rulership of Aquarius and not another sign. Why Aquarius should be the recipient isn’t even considered. Changing rulerships isn’t simply a question of the validity of a planet’s use in astrology, but whether a sign is well served by the ruler it has had for so many centuries.

Quote:

I'm often puzzled why people cling on to pre 20th century astrology so religously, when the same folks don't do the same with other 'sciences'.

Oh dear, we’re back to that: Is it a science or is it an art?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robin



Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 47

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yuzuru

what am i not understanding?

mithra 6
1/ - the brain/mind - which we know responds to stimuli, so the more complex the environment the more functions are required.
2/ - (what's the relevance of this question?) - how would we know for sure?
3/ - empirically, systematically, synchronistically, arbitrarily, mythologically, etc
4/ - it isn't, the argument is it seems as, maybe more, appropriate today. But I did stress for me this is debatable. (This leads onto another one of the interesting debates concerning should we consider uranus in charts of people born prior to it's discovery)?

ps - she's a he, he's not sure about anything just interested and puzzled!

Look at the valens descriptions from earlier the ones that are useful need translating. Robert Hand seems to acknowledge this but is he in a minority?
________
Angelina jolie


Last edited by robin on Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated