home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
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 zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Aquarius not so individualistic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 327

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nixx wrote:

The question I would like to ask you though Kirk is are you sure that these alleged Middle Platonists who invented Western Horoscopy circa 100 BCE were not of the mindset the Sun sign is or was the most fundamental dynamical pivot of the Western nativity ? I suppose it might come down to is there a copy of the minutes available. My understanding is they remain a touch elusive. Either way we could get into the so what if they did or didn’t banter.

I know this was asked to Kirk (and I'm sure he'll answer), but from the surviving texts, Sun signs were not used as a unique thing in and of themselves as describing a person. In other words, no one was called an Aries just because they were born under the Sun sign of Aries. At least I've never found any evidence of this.

Sun signs were not used this way until the 19th century or so.

Now what people did prior to the surviving texts is anyone's guess, but it would be a departure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5192
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kirk wrote:
What has interested and surprised me is that the Sun in general didn't seem to be as important or focal as it is now. The impression I get is that in ancient and medieval works there's plenty of talk about the Sun being important and central in astrological theory and structure, but when it comes to actual delineation the Sun often appears to serve as a kind of so-so factor, with more interest taken in the Lord of the ASC, 1st house planets, and the Moon. The Sun was important in such matters as determining the sect of the chart and the phase status of the planets, but from what I can tell the old ones didn't take much interest in routinely granting importance to the zodiacal and house placement of the Sun along with its aspects.

Maybe there are newly translated works that show the Sun to have been used more prominently.

I'm surprised this surprises you Kirk. Very Happy

I agree that the Sun is given little emphasis in much of medieval and renaissance natal astrology. Although I dont think we can imply that astrologers in this period ever thought of the Sun as astrologically 'so-so'. Quite the reverse.

The way the Sun is presented in most traditional sources its very like the all powerful Director standing back from the central stage but actually controlling all the action.

Just think of the areas that the Sun or seasons determine:

1 The Tropical Zodiac-Determined by the position of the Sun
2 The Domicile Rulerships in relationship to the seasons (according to Ptolemy)
3 The Exaltations in relation to the seasons (according to Ptolemy)
4 Planetary Sect ie noctural or diurnal
5 The Phases of the planets in relation to the Sun
6 Antiscion or Solstice points for planets. Days of equal daylight (ie declination of the Sun)
7 Contra-Antiscion. Planets equally distant from the Sun's Aries/Libra equinoctial axis are seen as connected through Contra-Antiscion. Such degrees are equal in ascensional time.
8 Hyleg Calculation. The position of the astrological Sun for Hyleg calculation
9 Lots of Fortune and Spirit. The position of the astrological Sun for calculating Lots/Parts of Fortune and Spirit. The Sun is linked to the Lot of Spirit.

From a historical perpective what you and Mithra6 have said is undeniably correct. However, I think a large factor to this is that Ptolemy's naturalistic approach came to dominate traditional astrology and earlier ancient approaches to the Sun were gradually discarded or forgotten. Its clear that ancient astrologers such as Vettius Valens or Varahamihira had a much more spiritual understanding of the meaning of the Sun. Ironically, this is in some respects closer to the view of modern astrologers than that of Ptolemy.

I have made this argument in a previous thread on the Traditional Forum:

I will quote Valens here on the Sun:

The all seeing Sun, then, being truly fire-like and the light of the mind, the organ of perception of the soul, is significant at a birth for kingly office, hegemony, mind, practical wisdom, outward form, motion, height of fortune, public, registration, action, popular, leadership, judgement, father, mastership, friendship, person of high repute, the honors of images, statues, and crowns of office, arch-priests of the fatherland ... of places. Of the parts of the body, it has authority over the head, sense-organs, right-eye, ribs, heart, respiratory or sensory motion, tendons. It also has authority over the essence of gold, of fruits of wheat and barley. It is of the diurnal sect, lemon-yellow, and sharp as for taste.
The Anthology, Vettius Valens. Book 1:1, translated by Robert Schmidt

I think we can see hints of the Stoic philosophy in Valens definition. It contrasts to the more naturalistic, empirical outlook of Ptolemy inspired by Aristotlean philosophy with reference only to qualities such as hot and dry in regards the Sun. Ancient astrologers saw the Sun as the luminary symbolising spirit and the higher mind or nous while the physical body and material matters were seen as symbolised by the the Moon. Hence the Lot of Fortune was the 'Lot of the Moon' because it was concerned with the body, material matters and worldy reputation. It also represented our fated destiny. In contrast the 'Lot of Spirit' was the 'lot of the Sun' because it concerned our intentional will/mind and represented our spirit (Daimon).

Ptolemy rejected this lot and the associated meaning of the Sun it implied because he rejected the spiritual world view of most of his predecessors.

However, its perfectly clear that the hellenistic tradition had long linked the Sun to spiritual matters as the 9th house was given the title 'House of God' and was the joy of the Sun. Indeed astrologers such as Rhetorius refer to the 9th house as 'the place of the Sun'.

I am not suggesting ancient astrologers ever delineated the Sun on its own the way modern astrologers do. However, it was more central in natal delineation in some ancient sources than it became in medieval and renaissance astrology. Clear examples of this are preserved in texts such as Antiochus and Porphyry.

The first step in ancient natal astrology was to determine the sect light. In 50% of charts the Sun was therefore the predominator. From this the dispositor (either domicile and/or bound ruler) of the sect light was very important in natal analysis. This contrasts to Ptolemy who restricted the hellenistic predominator technique to just a process to work out the length of life (hyleg).

As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 153
Location: United States

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I'm almost exactly two years late to this thread, but I will throw in my 2 cents. According to the information available on skyscript regarding aquarius:

The tendency towards 'detachment' runs like a thread through many of this sign's notable characteristics. On the one hand it gives a remarkable capacity for self-recognition and a crystal-clear reception of universal intelligence. At a spiritual level, it allows pure vision and penetrating perception. On the other, such self-reliant understanding inclines the Aquarian away from the impressions of others, often making them often appear to be a little 'different' and apart from their community.

Aquarius does indeed give people an independent streak, however I get the impression that it doesnt do so directly, but rather it is caused indirectly due to the tendency to be so detached (from the perceived rest of society), thus by default one ends up becoming incidentally unique.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Feb 2014
Posts: 894

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Recently I was describing to somebody how the French Revolution was synchronous with Pluto in Aquarius opposition Uranus in Leo, and how Aquarius here represented the common people. And then I thought of the contradiction that most Aquarians are not political, or part of groups - as is often a description for the Aquarius-ruled eleventh house. Political people are typically cardinal signs, and group bunnies are more likely to be Capricorns than Aquarians.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 29 Mar 2015
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

According to some astrologers Aquarius Némesis is the tribal instinct.
I suppose this is one of the reasons there are more Aquarius Sun astrologers than in any other sign.Astrology provides them with a non-tribal identity.They become Aquarius rather thanjust citizens of a nation or tribe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 22 Jul 2013
Posts: 536

Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really like Jaimini's synopsis on the signs. He describes Aquarius with the following keywords:-

If it's not astronomically true, it's not astrologically true.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 29 Mar 2015
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun May 03, 2015 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Getting back to the focus of the thread I recomend this article by Deborah Houlding on the traditional understanding of the sign of Aquarius.

Here is a selection:

Saturn's traditional rulership of Aquarius further colours this sign with the qualities of detachment, objectivity and restraint. In astrological philosophy, the Sun and Saturn are conceived as enemies, neither able to express itself fully within the other's sign of dignity. The Sun craves attention and when the planetary energies are drawn though the Sun it centres them firmly upon the self. Hence the Sun is said to be 'in detriment' in Aquarius, where the personal ego is subjugated in favour of egalitarian concepts and far-ranging humanitarian concerns. The Aquarian perspective is drawn from a broad angle, and places the vision of the wider perspective above that which it sees from a position of self interest. The spirit of Aquarius is to look beyond the immediate and self-centred, to nurture the interests of progress for collective society and humanity as a whole.


That`s why I`d expect to see a lot of Aquarius in the chart of Sweden
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

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