Hello Mark,

"Oh dear we do seem to be divided by a common langauge!"

Lol! Do you think so? Maybe, maybe not. With an eye on the current heavens, it could simply be something like your taking hold of one end of the rope, my taking the other end, and our twirling it as fast as we can to see what arises (jumps up) in the middle?
Something new that we may not have previously considered, or skipped, to potentially consider for integration into our respective understandings. Or not.
I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss such things as it helps (me ... my 'mercury') to clarify, integrate & increase understanding.

"Er well no I clearly wasn't! If you go back you will see I raised the point that I thought Firmicus's degree points were linked to fixed stars. From. my perspective then the precession of the fixed stars made these points irrelevant."

Yes, linked to fixed stars - but I think we have two things going on here.
1. Frame of reference (earth's) and 2. bodies (Fixed Stars).
Do we just wind back the fixed stars (reverse engineer Precession of Stars), or do we also wind back the frame of reference (reverse engineer Precession of Equinoxes)?
27 Leo is a degree point - it's part of the frame of reference.
Regulus is a 'Fixed Star' - a 'body'.
If we don't reverse engineer precession of the equinox, aren't we still considering the Fixed Stars (reversed or not) from a current frame of reference?

Clear as mud? Okay ... maybe looking at it another way.
If the frame of reference is a co-ordinate system, do we reverse the co-ordinates or do we move the 'fixed' bodies to arrive at some point of origin?
I think it's a bit of both - otherwise, by doing only one of the two, we're probably only seeing half the picture.

"However, are you suggesting these degrees remain immutable in the Tropical Zodiac?"

Quite the reverse - I'm reversing the degrees remember?
So, by way of example, as time unfolds from say FM to now, approx. 20 degrees Virgo (FM's frame of reference) has mutated (?) into approx. 27 Leo (current frame of reference).
That because the frame of reference has continued to move through time (shown by precession of the equinoxes), a meaning that may have been attributed to the degree of say 20 Virgo in FM's time now applies to 27 Leo.
That while the actual degree point has precessed through the cumulative progression (layers) of time, the meaning has remained constant (well, close thereto, subject to the vagaries and evolution of language, interpretation, re-interpretation etc).

To bring in the stars, then maybe it's more a question of what 'Star' did the co-ordinate of 20 Virgo align with back in FM's time (that via precession of equinoxes now = 27 Leo), instead of picking a particular star and reversing it back?
FM wasn't the originator of meanings attributed various degrees - quite possibly have to wind the clock back (both the frame of reference and the 'bodies') further.

A degree being part of the 'frame-of-reference' then I'd have thought we wind back the frame-of-reference to the relevant period (as well as the 'Stars') and then consider what 'Star' that earlier degree point (which underlies the current degree point) may or may not have aligned with and how that translated to earth.

Best regards,
TS.

To bring in the stars, then maybe it's more a question of what 'Star' did the co-ordinate of 20 Virgo align with back in FM's time (that via precession of equinoxes now = 27 Leo), instead of picking a particular star and reversing it back?

To me that seems like hair splitting. In either case you need to precess the degree and all the current positions of of neighbouring fixed stars to see if any align with it.

I don't actually think we are disagreeing here..unless you want to!

Incidentally, you aren't strongly Virgo yourself are you?

best wishes,

Mark

Hi Mark,

"To me that seems like hair splitting."

Lol! Yes, splitting the hair in opposite directions (Precessing Stars and Precessing Equinox goes in opposite directions).

"Incidentally, you aren't strongly Virgo yourself are you?"

No! Think maybe what's called pretty evenly distributed (from a planetary pov!). Mercury's been known to take many guises ...

Best regards,

TS

Precessing Stars and Precessing Equinox goes in opposite directions).

True. I think anyone still reading this thread must have grasped that by now!

That doesn't change the fact that both issues relate to procession and need to be considered together in my view. Anyway, now we have cleared up that misunderstanding I want to return to your suggestion about other classical authors mentioning degrees.

I only have copies of Ptolemy, Dorotheus and of course Firmicus from that era. Did you have any specific authors in mind or were you just speculating on the possibility of this?

"I think anyone still reading this thread must have grasped that by now!"

Lol! Ah well, must also be obvious I'm slower then.

"That doesn't change the fact that both issues relate to procession and need to be considered together in my view."

Agreed. The latter star reference simply took me in another direction to the one you first raised. C'est la vie in navigating the high seas.
Therefore, if we reverse precession of equinox back to Ptolemy's time (roughly 26/27 degrees, to pick a point 127AD) then from current 26/27 Leo it takes us back to approx. vicinity of 'Spica' at 27 Virgo (now approx. 24 Libra).
If precess the star near this current 27 Leo point, ie. 'Regulus' at 29+ degrees, it takes us back to approx 3 Leo in Ptolemy's time.

The midpoint of 26/27 Leo perhaps indicative of where these two (Astrologer-King) then met ... maybe indicative of point of transition/transmission of power?

Is it possible then in view of this that 'Spica' was considered as one star more representative of astrologers (this attribution carrying forward to the current point of 26/27 Leo via p.e.), while Regulus remained largely to do with the rise & fall of Kings?

Other considerations influencing attributions of degrees that came to mind being the equal division occurring under the regulatory influence of the Sun and, historically, the close attention paid to the changing nature and passage of the Moon which probably also attributed qualities to the degrees (lunar mansions etc) ... from one perspective, the Sun bringing in the equinox, the Moon the Stars (wasn't the passage of the Moon once gauged from the Pleiades?).

Anyway, aside from that, a couple of other authors who briefly sprung to mind during this (in addition to who's already been mentioned) was Al-Biruni and maybe David Frawley on the Rig Veda/360 degrees. Speculating, haven't yet returned to revisit them.

Best wishes,
TS.

Hello TS,

Is it possible then in view of this that 'Spica' was considered as one star more representative of astrologers (this attribution carrying forward to the current point of 26/27 Leo via p.e.), while Regulus remained largely to do with the rise & fall of Kings?

Mmm thats an intriguing suggestion. Spica as the Alpha star of Virgo has always been associated with the Goddess or divine feminine in various cultures such as Babylon, Egypt etc. In the middle ages this association shifted to The Virgin Mary. Plus because its close to the ecliptic its sometimes conjunct planets. Spica can be eclipsed by the Moon and (rarely) by the planets. The last planetary eclipse of Spica occurred when Venus passed in front of the star (as seen from Earth) on November 10, 1783. The next eclipse will occur September 2, 2197, when Venus again passes in front of Spica.

In Lilly's time amongst other things its associated with clerics and those with a spiritual occupation ie 9th house matters. And of course astrology is there too with the origin of the 9th house in divination. Cornelius Agrippa suggested it was linked to Hermes Trismegistus himself! I would have to study this a lot more but I think you are definitely on to something here. Thanks!

Incidentally I checked out Anne Wrights website for fixed stars especially linked to Astrology. I came up with the following:

Acrux-11'57 Scorpio ( Astrologers and Occultists)
Alphecca 12'23 Scorpio ( Gift for Astrology)

The following are all linked to divination:

Acrux-11'57 Scorpio
Gacrux-6'49 Scorpio
Menkent-12'23 Scorpio
Mimosa-11'44 Scorpio
Agena-23'53 Scorpio
Toliman/Bungala/Rigel Kentaurus-29'34 Scorpio

A clear Scorpio link! However, with precession nearly all these stars would be back in Libra in the classical period.

One factor that needs to be considered is the southern declination of these fixed stars. For example, Toliman and Gacrux have a declination of
-59'40 and -57'05 so I don't think they would be observable in much of Europe in classical times or indeed now. However, they would have been visible in Egypt , Mesopotania and probably Greece. I am not sure how old these assocations are for these stars.

However, Alphecca has a northern declination of +26'43 so may be more relevant in northern hemisphere charts in Europe/North America.

best regards,

Mark

Hello TS,

Here is a link to one of the major classical texts on the fixed stars by an unknown astrologer which historians refer to as the 'Anonymous of the year 379'.

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... 79.html#31

Enjoy

Mark

Hello Mark,

My apologies for the delay in getting back to you.

Thanks for the link, greatly appreciated. And thanks also for sharing more on Spica.

"A clear Scorpio link! However, with precession nearly all these stars would be back in Libra in the classical period."

Interesting. And perhaps within this grouping we also find some earlier point of attribution for the current 11 Virgo degree that was also mentioned as being associated with astrologers [reversing prec. equ. approx. 27 degrees = about 8 Libra, stars currently at around 5-6 Scorpio, eg. Gacrux & Khambalia on Anne Wright's site, perhaps including constellation Bootes which gives some liking for occultism].

"One factor that needs to be considered is the southern declination of these fixed stars."

Yes, I'd have thought so too.

Best wishes,
TS

And:

"I am not sure how old these assocations are for these stars."

Re: Gacrux, part of Crux (The Southern Cross) Bernadette Brady mentions there's references made to this grouping of stars by Hindu astronomers well before Christ.

At http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/conste ... /Crux.html it's mentioned that:

"The Southern Cross is only visible form sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N). Crux points almost due north-south. You you follow the line south through Gamma and Alpha Crucis, you will arrive near the South Celestial Pole in the constellation Octans."

Kind regards,
TS

Hello again TS,

Thanks for the information. Its useful to remember the impact of precession on declination as well as longtitude.

Bernadette Brady in her Book of fixed stars refers to this when she mentions Sirius gradually appearing lower and lower in the Egyptian night sky over the centuries. This was interpretated as a weakening of the old God's power.

In terms of identifying the source of the astrologers degree you summarised the basic issue for me earlier:

Did Weymss, DeVore, Carter et al study the classics and project them forward? The classical sources amongst others provided the foundation to much of what's known now. Considerations perhaps, or perhaps not.

Firstly, you have the problem of what to select or omit in searching through classical sources. The tradition is immense. Moreover, irrespective of what the classical authors said the issue to me is whether the 19th century and early 20th century key players who translated astrology for the modern world were both conversant with these sources and willing to use them. Reading books like 'A Confusion of Prophets' by Patrick Curry it seems clear that the ideas of Theosophy had an immense influence during this period. There was a great interest in modernising astrology on both sides of the Atlantic.

While we can't totally rule out the possibility of a classical origin to such an idea I think the specific focus on Astrologers degrees around 26/27 Aquarius/Leo and 11 Virgo/Pisces probably lies in the latter period. Before we start trawling through all the traditional sources back to the Babylonians it makes a lot more sense , to me at least, to begin looking in the more immediate past.

Nevertheless, I wish you well on your journey to explore all the possible associations between the natal chart and astrologers. It is a perennially interesting subject I admit but not one I intend to devote any more time to at present

However one last offering...Charles Carter thought the strongest signature of an astrologer was a Sun-Neptune connection. Its nice that if we look hard and wide enough we can all find some astrological justification for our passion for astrology. I prefer the idea that we choose astrology rather than it choosing us.

Be well

Mark

Charles Carter was *brilliant*.

Interesting. I have the moon at 27 Aquarius (5th) and Venus (11th) directly opposing (both squaring Neptune at 22 Scorp). I am a Virgo Sun (12th) & Asc (28 degrees) with the Sun conj. Uranus/Pluto, sextile Neptune. According to what I've been reading in this thread, I've got all the right astrologer 'ingredients'. Ever since my teens, I have always 'done' astrology but am only now (20 years later) beginning to take it more seriously. It seems I can't help but think and do astrology. However, I have always used astrology for personal use and avoided doing charts for others because I have lacked the confidence until now.

I believe that the reason why many Virgo ascendant people might become interested in astrology is the Virgo rising approach to life as a problem to be solved. As a double Virgo with an Aquarius moon, my interest in astrology has primarily come from the need to understand myself and the people I know. It helps me figure people out. In order for me to feel secure, I need to understand (or at least believe I do) why people act the way they do. Astrology, for the most part, provides a nice and neatly ordered system for doing this (debatable,I know). Other systems, such as the Enneagram etc., also appeal to me, but I like astrology best because it can be 'explained' and is rooted in the natural and known world so it just makes sense to this earthy Virgo.

Ulitmately, I think astrology appeals to different people for different reasons. I believe the chart may show us why we might be drawn to astrology and how we relate to it, but I'm not so sure there is anything so definitive to say whether a person is or isn't an astrologer. If I had been an Aries rising, for instance, I would most likely not have had the need to figure people out in the way that I do and hence might not have become interested in astrology. But who knows?

Cheers,
Drummergirl