Yeah, I dunno... I don't have anything at 27 Aqu/Leo or 11 Vir/Pis; I have what I guess might be other indications of interest in the occult: Uranus and Pluto in the 8th, Jupiter in the 9th, Neptune in Scorpio at the MC. I suppose having my Sun directly conjunct the Galactic Core might help? Or does that just make me a space cadet?

I suppose that there might be *some* substantiated evidence for a 'astrologer's degree', but I remain sceptical; this, to me, is like saying that 71% of people with Uranus on the Ascendant will be a revolutionary leader. Statistics just won't play it out, unless perhaps they study the charts of thousands and thousands of subjects. Small sample sizes skew statistics, so to speak. (Alliterative!!)

The different descriptions of certain degrees *is* interesting, much like the Sabian Symbols are interesting; I'm just wondering how the investigators arrived at their conclusions...

Hi Draco,

"I have my AC/DC Axis across 11 Pisces/Virgo. I would however like to know why this axis is associated with astrology."

As I've Firmicus to hand at the minute - "a bright star is in the 10th degree of Pisces .... a familiar of kings;" which astrologers were. The nature/quality of the stars?

Kind regards,
TS

Hello TS,

You have been busy!

On Firmicus..I haven't had time to consult my copy. However, I assume his references refer to fixed stars in which case they are no longer relevant surely?

I did consider the book by Charubel and Sepharial 'Degrees of the Zodiac Symbolised' but Kim Farnell stated in a private post there was nothing really there. I don't own the book myself.

I still think Kim's reference to Charles Carter is the strongest candidate so far.

I must admit to be being totally unconvinced by the Sabian symbols. Why not use the ink blot test or cloud shapes to guide you instead?

Interesting on the research. I will of course fully accept the points that fit my own natal chart and exclude the rest!

Mark

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

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.

TS

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

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!

Best wishes,
TS.

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.

Here is the link to find Mike Harding's comments regarding astrologer's degrees:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/harding.html

Scroll down the page to the copy of his natal chart just under the question about publishing his birth information.

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?

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

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?