16
Hello Deb,

Even if the Taurus camp of astrologers is smaller it does seem very respectable with yourself, John Frawley and William Lilly in its company.

And you have have a Virgo Moon...aha. Virgo strikes again!

Mark

17
Hi Mark,
his references refer to fixed stars in which case they are no longer relevant surely?
Why?

There's also Bootes - "those who have Ascendant in Bootes will be divine astrologers, skilled in the Chaldean art." [FM]
"or cloud shapes to guide you instead?"
Druidic mastery of the craft had its merits.
"... will of course fully accept the points that fit my own natal chart and exclude the rest! "
Lol! Naturally. :D

TS

18
Hello TS,

On Firmicus you asked why I thought his references which refer to fixed stars were no longer relevant?

Well the meanings of the constellations and stars do of course remain constant. However, due to precession of the equinoxes the star positions have moved 20 odd degrees in the tropical Zodiac since his time.

So I am assuming degree references linked to fixed stars in the 4th century AD are no longer applicable. However, I still haven't had time to read the bit of Firmicus you refer to. I am feeling lazy...what pages?

Mark

19
Hello Mark,
However, due to precession of the equinoxes the star positions have moved 20 odd degrees in the tropical Zodiac since his time.
Oh, okay, I see ... in progressing we're precessing, or in going forwards we're going back (or something like that).
Maybe then we also look at approx. 20 degrees back from 27 Leo ... "in 18th degree (Virgo),they will be important priests, learned friends of kings ..." (1 degree out - oddly, 21 degrees back?).
However, I still haven't had time to read the bit of Firmicus you refer to. I am feeling lazy...what pages?


Lol! No real rush (at least, I don't think there is). Pges starting from 281 "The Myriogenesis" ... or may wish to start with those preceding.

Have fun! :D

Best wishes,
TS.

20
I'm currently reading the book Vocations by Noel Tyl in which he states that the astrologer's degrees are 18 degress Mutable signs (claiming Harding as the source). However, throughout the book he has various charts at 25 and 26 degrees Aquarius or Leo and he claims they are on the astrologer's degree also. He claims on page 123 the 26 degree Aqaurius/Leo axis (Carter). So I'm thinking he is allowing for an orb of maybe 2 degrees. He's really not very clear.

BTW, the Aquarius/Leo axis consists of the astrologer's degree. So it's not a question of just Leo or just Aquarius, but it crosses the entire axis to include both signs. So people with the correct degree of Aquarius, as well as those with the Leo degree have the astrologer's degree in their charts.

What I do gather is that an astrologer doesn't NEED to have planets on these degrees, but it is very telling when astrologers do have these degrees in their charts.
Alexa

22
Hello TS,

I have looked at the procession dates in more detail. According to James Holden in his 'History of Horoscopic Astrology' Firmicus is estimated to have written his book around 355 AD.

We can estimate fixed stars moving 1 degree every 72 yrs/ 10 degrees every 720 years. I therefore estimate the fixed stars have moved 23 degrees since the time of Firmicus.

So that would put Regulus for example at 6-7 Leo. Its currently at 29'55 Leo.

However, I wonder if this all isn't really a distraction from the focus of the thread?

I mean can we show the ideas of Firmicus filtered into the 19th century and early 20th century when astrology revived?

I think those people were the crucial ones in influencing the attitudes of modern astrology.

As many of the basic ideas of astrology were gradually lost in this transmission ( such as use of dignities) why should something as obscure as this carry over from the classical era?
Last edited by Mark on Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

23
Hello Alexa,

Thanks for the link to the Mike Harding article. I note though he admits the idea doesn't find any support in the research that has been done.

As for Noel Tyl well all he seems to be doing is repeating what he has heard from another astrologer. So what?
As has been stated before the issue is not so much what people believe but why do they believe it? What is the astrological justification for this?

The reference to 18 degrees in mutable signs is yet another twist to the Astrologer's degree saga! I don't suppose Tyl quotes his source from Mike Harding does he?

This whole discussion reminds of the the idea of the scientist Richard Dawkins that ideas or 'memes' can reproduce and spread rather like a virus. It doesn't matter if ideas can be verified or not.

Ok its probably not a great example as Dawkins would no doubt apply this to all of astrology and religion etc. Still it does convey the way many of the assumptions of modern astrology have spread.

By the way I love your pic. Thats what I call an astrological library!

Mark

24
Nicholas DeVore writes in the Encyclopedia of Astrology
found at : http://www.astrologyweekly.com/dictiona ... egrees.php

"Several works, symbolical, speculative and statistical, treat of influences presumed to repose in certain individual degrees. Maurice Wemyss in the four volumes of his "Wheel of Life" even introduces some hypothetical and as yet undiscovered planets to account for certain qualities and effects. It is probable that many of the qualities ascribed to individual degrees have to do with sensitive points created by Eclipses, major conjunctions, or a close conjunction in both longitude and latitude between a solar system body and a fixed star, which points are accented by the transit of another planet at a later date. For ready reference a list of such points is arranged in a zodiacal sequence..."


Then in his list of "individual degree meanings"

of virgo 11?....An astrological degree.
and of Leo 25?....Alcoholic (25?-26?); astrology (25?-29?).

Where he found these two points exactly is unclear?

26
Thanks Borealis,

Very interesting. I didn't realise there was an online version of DeVore's dictionary. I will have to add that to my favourites.

So he has 22-28 Aquarius an an 'astrological area'. and 25-29 Leo.

There does seem a worrying link between astrology and alcoholism around 25-26 degrees of these signs. Sounds somewhat less impressive doesn't it...'I have my MC on the alcoholic astrologer's degree!'

As you state DeVore mentions 11 Virgo as an astrologers degree but no reference to Pisces. A clear difference from Charles Carter.

Kim Farnell gave her Charles Carter source as the Encyclopeadia of Psychological astrology. Judging by dates it looks like De Vore's book was written in the early 1930's. I assume thats after Carter's book but I currently have neither in my possession so its hard to be sure.

The Scottish astrologer Maurice Weymss name keeps popping up and I am now keen to try and track down his writings on the degree points to see if he is the actual source of this or not. Unfortunately, all his books are out of print so I am going to have to hunt down a facsimile copy. Unless of course any generous soul out there has the relevant source and is willing to share what it says?

27
Hello Mark,
"...Firmicus is estimated to have written his book around 355AD."
In the Intro to the book it mentions evidence that Mathesis was begun in 334AD, the 20 yr difference probably neither here nor there. So yes, approx. 23 degrees - I hadn't bothered to check your earlier figure. Precession of equinoxes being approx. 1 degree = 71.6 years. From now, 2006, back to 334AD = 1672 yrs/71.6 = 23.35 degrees (round up to 24 degrees, or back to 23). If going by works written 72 or more years ago, then deduct relevant no. of degrees from the current 23-24.
"So that would put Regulus for example at 6-7 Leo. Its currently at 29'55 Leo."
Well, this is interesting. Now I'm confused. Precession of equinoxes is backwards through the zodiacal signs = forwards in time/age, ie. forwards in time = Aries (Libra axis), Pisces (Virgo axis), Aquarius (Leo axis), Capricorn (Cancer axis).
Reverse direction/order if going backwards in time, ie. Aquarius (Leo axis), Pisces (Virgo axis), Aries (Libra axis).
So if we're reversing precession to go backwards in time I'd have thought we go from Leo (Aquarius axis) to Virgo (Pisces axis). But it appears you've projected approx. 23 degrees forward, from Leo/Aquarius axis forwards towards Cancer/Capricorn axis.
"However, I wonder if this all isn't really a distraction from the focus of the thread?"
It depends I guess on whether you're confining your research to relatively modern sources on the astrologer's degrees or were interested in tracking it back further to some source of origin. I'm not suggesting Firmicus was original source by any stretch, only an earlier one and that's why I mentioned him for consideration (think you asked where this idea had originated).

The astrologers degrees are not a new idea as Firmicus shows. In order of the stars, via the planets, Sun & Moon, to earth.
"...why should something as obscure as this carry over from the classical era?"
Has there ever been an era where people have not asked "what work/profession am I (or will my child be) most suited to"?

I'm sure astrologers throughout the various ages were not exempt from this human concern, and sought validation from the stars for their occupation ... especially since the stars were a focus of their occupation.

To be able to delineate others occupations but not their own ... to me that would seem a little obscure.

Kind regards,
TS
Last edited by Tumbling Sphinx on Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.