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

Hello to all,

I am Taurus, AC Libra, Moon in Pisces and Hobby Astrologer. My Uranus is in 9th and has only one bad aspect (with Monn in 5th). It is the best aspected planet in my Birth Chart.
I have seen many times, that just Uranus in 9th is good for Astrology.

There were two American ladies Astrologers, told me 2004, I am very good for Solar Return, I have to go on, to do it professionaly and not do all for free. But, I am Taurus and want to be perfect, because have bad experiences with professional Astrologers. They took my money and nothing was right (6 and 7 years ago).

I do believe, that every degree of every sign means something. There is a book about all degrees: THEORY ON THE DEGREES. I will try to find it.
I have seen in one Astro magazine, that if I have Mars at 2 degrees of Leo, I should meet a man, prince. It is very strange, but all men, important to me were looking, like a prince.
Beside that, in my Past life I was princess in England, and was hanging myself because of my man, who was my boyfriend in this life, twice.

I had to do Regression because of steady chronic pains (on the right side, from shoulder joint untill right eye). My medical doctor in the Spa told me that, she has done the same. Because she has headache over and over again.

loara29

The 27deg. Leo/Aq Astrologer's Degree was put forward by Alan Leo; I can't remember exactly which text, but possibly "How to Judge a Nativity" and without reading it again I can't be sure.

I am not sure why he claimed it, except that he had Saturn conjunct Asc. at 27 Leo himself and that several prominent astrologers in his day had noteworthy placements at 27 Leo (or less commonly opposing it). There may also be a Theosophist connotation, knowing the history of Alan Leo a little.

I have Jupiter at 27 Leo myself and have always been truly fascinated by the study of astrology, I'm not saying that necessarily means anything, but it is what it is.

Hi,

Thanks for the Alan Leo lead. Not sure I want to buy all his books just to find out though.

It occurs to me that at Alan Leo's birth the royal fixed star Regulus would have been fairly close to 27 Leo and of course opposing 27 Aquarius. It must have been right on his ascendant. The star is about to ingress into Virgo in a year or so after thousands of years in the tropical sign of Leo.

Can anyone else verify in which book Alan Leo states this? It would be interesting to know if Leo mentions the fixed stars in this link. If so the fixed stars might provide the explanation for the modern notion of an astrologers degree at 27 Aquarius. This would fit in with a tradition of degree associations connected to the fixed stars going back to classical writers like Firmicus.

One reason I am posting on this old dinosaur of a thread is that I have finally tracked down the book I was looking for by the turn of the century Scottish astrologer Maurice Weyms.

Just as a recap I had thought Weymss might have been the source of Carter attributing 27 Aquarius /Leo as the Astrologer's degree.

However, in his book 'The Wheel of Life or Scientific Astrology' Weymss makes no reference to this. All he does state is that 25 Leo & Aquarius are associated 'Brilliance and splendour' while 26 Aquarius & Leo are associated with' communicativeness, conversation, linguistic ability'. He lists no association for 27 Aquarius or Leo.

He lists the following associations based on his natal research that have relevance to astrology:

Mediumship: 3 Virgo/Pisces

Magic/Occultism: 5 Taurus/Scorpio

or for magic in practice: 14 Virgo/Pisces

Prophecy/Prediction: 16 Gemini/Sagittarius or 23 Cancer/Capricorn

Weymss suggests:

prophecy/prediction '' may be either be based on the knowledge that certain events have previously been followed by certain other events and the expectation that the same sequence will recur, or prediction may be made spontaneously as the result of some direct perception of the future.

He links Cancer/Capricorn with the former and Gemini/Sag with the latter.

Of course there are lots of astrologers who have written on degree associations. I am just offering this to share. I cannot say I have put these associations to the test.

Mark

I have an ascendant at Leo 7 deg

and I have a grand trine in Air signs

Mercury 27 Aquarius--Saturn 27 Gemini--Uranus 27 Libra

I hope that makes me an astrologer

Moon in Taurus, Mars in Leo 27 here as well.

Not that it matters I guess, but here is my 2 cents.

If one accepts the idea that the origin of the 27 degree Leo/Aquarius emphasis relates to the fixed star Regulus I would suggest we should be shifting our attention to modern nativities with 29 Leo/Aquarius as this is where Regulus has been located for some time.

In this context though I think Regulus tells us more about elevating the public profile of the astrologer rather than telling us how good they are at the art itself. There also lots of other zodiac degrees linked to powerful fixed stars. For example 23/24 Libra linked to the highly benefic fixed star Spica.

Personally, the only consistent thing I have noticed in astrology is the disproportionate incidence of Virgo planets (esp the Sun or Moon) amongst professional astrologers. This rather supports the traditional idea of Mercury as the ruler of astrology.