Skyscript Astrology Forum

Anyone who has read Marcus Manilius's text, can you tell me if he ever mentions the productive qualities of the signs, that is, whether a sign is fruitful or barren?

Thank you, Tom.

Without directly quoting the rest, can you tell me what Manilius thinks of the other signs?

I am especially interested in what he says about Taurus and Sagittarius.

Hi Larxene,

This would be Manilius' complete list:

Fruitful: Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces
Twixt: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Libra, Sagittarius, Capricorn
Barren: Leo, Virgo, Aquarius

Other authors don't always agree with this; some have more (up to eight!) barren signs. In my mind, this weakens the argument that the 5th house can't represent Leo since this is a barren sign. (Even though it's one of the signs every classical author includes as barren.)

Let us hear if/when you have any observations on this, please.

Michael

Martin Sternbach wrote:

In my mind, this weakens the argument that the 5th house can't represent Leo since this is a barren sign. (Even though it's one of the signs every classical author includes as barren.)

I dont follow your logic here. All the available sources contradict your view that Leo can be a fertile sign but you still think that provides support for your view that it is associated with the 5th house? With a tradition nearly 2000 years old you can always dig up some source to contradict any idea (Note: I am not referring to Manilius here btw). Still, Manilius is a bit idiosyncratic at times and some of his ideas are not repeated elsewhere in the tradition. That doesn't mean there wasn't an astrological mainstream on such issues. Especially, by the medieval and renaissance period.

Obviously you do seem to have something of a vested interest in seeking to undermine the association between Leo and barreness. This is a continuation of our discussion on the General forum where I suggested the 5th house link to children made the natural zodiac sequence of Leo a poor match for this house meaning.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8270

Claudius Ptolemy certainly considered both the signs Leo and Virgo as especially noted for being barren, infertile or sterile. This largely related to their planetary rulers. Although, Virgo's association as infertile seem to be connected to that sign's basic symbolism too. Ptolemy's ideas had an enormous impact on later medieval and renaissance astrology. So he is not just any source. He is the most influential one for the later tradition. This from his Tetrabiblos:

Now, the donative planets, when they are merely in such a position and are by themselves, give single offspring, but if they are in bicorporeal and feminine signs, and similarly if they are in the fecund signs, such as Pisces, Scorpio, and Cancer, they give two or even more. If they are of a masculine nature, because they are in masculine signs or in aspect to the sun, they give male children; but female, if they are of a feminine nature. If the maleficent planets overcome them, or if they are found in sterile places, such as Leo or Virgo, they give children, but for no good nor for any length of time. When the sun and the maleficent planets govern the aforesaid regions, if they are in masculine signs or in sterile signs, and if they are not overcome by the beneficent planets, they signify complete childlessness, but if they are in feminine or fecund signs or have the testimony of the beneficent planets, they give offspring, but it will suffer injury and be short-lived. Tetrabiblos IV. of Children. Trans F.E. Robbins (1940)

I think most sources agree the Mercury signs are barren along with Leo and the triplicity of Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces are the most fertile. Beyond that disagreements do emerge in terms of emphasis. Especially on the Saturn ruled signs.

In his Christian Astrology (1647), William Lilly states the following regarding the fruitfulness/barreness of signs:

Aries: By reason Mars, a sterill planet hath that for his house, and the Sun for Exaltation, is rather a Sign of Barrennesse than otherwise.Taurus: Is reputed more fruitful than barren, being the house of Venus, who is fruitful, and the exaltation of the Moon.
Gemini: Is adjudged barren, being the house of Mercury, who discerns nothing of himself.
Cancer: is the most fruitful and bountiful Sign, it being the house of the Moon, and the exaltation of Jupiter.
Leo: Is reputed barren, being the house of the Sun, and Lyons bring forth Young rarely.
Virgo: Hath the name of the barren Signe, for Mayds of themselves produce no Births &c.
Libra: Rather a Signe of fecundity, it being the house of Venus, and Saturn his exaltation.
Scorpio: Though the house of Mars, yet generally accepted for fruitful.
Sagittarius: Ever conceived fruitfull, because the house of Jupiter.
Capricorn: A Signe of few children inclining to barrennesse.
Aquarius: Without doubt more fruitful than barren.
Pisces: Very fecund and prolificall, being the House of Jupiter and exaltation of Venus, its Signe of many Children.
Christian Astrology (1647) CHAPTER CXVIII, by William Lilly

Just why Aquarius becomes more fruitful than barren in Lilly's description of signs qualities is not entirely clear to me. One would have thought it would tend to barreness due to the Saturn rulership. But then Scorpio has a long tradition of being a fertile sign despite its association with the lesser malefic Mars. I personally think this may relate to the ancient idea that Mars had its joy in the sign of Scorpio. As a planet of the nocturnal sect Mars was thought to be more compatible in its nocturnal domicile of Scorpio. Intriguingly, Scorpio is the sign on the 5th cusp of the Thema Mundi with Mars in that house.

I can only speculate that the view on Aquarius may go back to similar ancient sect logic that Aquarius was the sign of joy of Saturn. In this case a planet of the diurnal sect (Saturn) was at its most compatible in its diurnal domicilie.

Mark

Michael wrote:

In my mind, this weakens the argument that the 5th house can't represent Leo since this is a barren sign. (Even though it's one of the signs every classical author includes as barren.)

Mark replied:

I dont follow your logic here. All the available sources contradict your view that Leo can be a fertile sign but you still think that provides support for your view that it is associated with the 5th house?

No, this is not my logic. I don't regard Leo as a ?fertile sign? nor do I think that it needs to be traditionally classified as such in order to stand in analogy to the 5th house. Rather, I wonder how valuable such a classification is an argument against the Natural Houses can be in light of the fact that there is so much ambiguity surrounding the issue. Let's look at some of the lists the classical writers provided us with (according to Wolfgang H?bner: Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike, p. 162):

F = Fruitful
T = Twixt
B = Barren

Serapion: F: ? T: Le, Vi, Aq B: Ta, Vi, Cap
Manilius: F: ? T: Ar, Ta, Ge, Li, Sa, Cap B: Le, Vi, Aq
Dorotheus 1,19: F: ? T: Ar, Ta, Ge, Li, Sa B: Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Dorotheus 2,10: F: (Can), Sc, Aq, (Pi) T: ? B: Ar, Ta, Ge, Le, Vi, Sa, Cap
Ptolemy: F: ? T: ? B: Le, Vi
Valens: F: ? T: Ar, Ta, Sa, Aq B: Ge, Vi
Paulus Alexandrinus: F: ? T: Ar, Ge, Li, Sa B: Ta, Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Olympiodorus: F: ? T: Ar, (Ta), Ge, Li, Sa B: Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Schol. Paul: F: ? T: Ar, Ge, Li, (Sa) B: Ta, Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Hephaistion: F: Can, Sc, Cap, Pi T: ? B: Le, Vi, (Sc), Sa, Cap
Rhetorios (1): F: Can, Li, Sc, Pi T: Ar, Ta, Ge, Le, Sa, Aq B: Ta, Ge, Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Rhetorius (2): F: ? T: Ar, Ta, Ge, Le, Sa, Aq B: Ta, Ge, Le, Vi, Li, Sa, Cap, Aq
Abu Masar: F: Can, Sc, (Cap), Pi T: Ar, Ta, Li, Sa, Aq B: Ta, Ge, Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Alcabitius: F: ? T: Ar, Ta, Li, Sa, Cap, Aq B: Ge, Le, Vi
Abenragel: F: ? T: Ar, Ta, Li, Sa, Cap B: Ge, Le
Kamateros (1): F: Can, Sc, T: Ar, Sa B: Cap, Aq
Kamateros (2): F: ? T: ? B: Ta, Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Arnaldus de Villanova: F: ? T: Ta, Ge, Aq B: Ar, Le, Vi, Li, Sa, Cap
Rantzau: F: ? T: Ta, Li, Sa, Cap, Aq B: Ar, Ge, Le, Vi
Anonymous C (CCAG I, p. 164-166): F: Ar, Ta, Can, Sc, Pi T: Sa B: Le, Vi, Cap, Aq
Anononymous L (ed. A. Ludwich: Maximi et Ammonis carminum...,, Leipzig 1877, p. 105-112): F: Ar, Ta, Can, Sc, Pi T: Ar, Ta, Le, Aq B: Ge, Vi, Li, Sa, Cap
Anonymous M (ibid., p. 366): F: (Ge), Can, Sc, Pi T: ? B: Vi, Sa, Cap, Aq
Anonymous R (ed. J. Camerarius, N?rnberg 1532): F: Can, Li, Sc, Pi T: Sa, Aq B: Ge, Vi, Cap
Anonymous S (ed. Ludwich, op. cit., p. 383): F: Ar, Can, Li, Sc, Pi T: Ar, Le, Vi, Sa, Aq B: Ge, Li, Cap, Aq

Exact sources on demand.

Leo is often, but not always considered a barren sign ? i.e. the important source Valens doesn't place it there. Over all, the list varies greatly among different authors.

With a tradition nearly 2000 years old you can always dig up some source to contradict any idea

This surely is a double-edged sword, Mark.

(Note: I am not referring to Manilius here btw). Still, Manilius is a bit idiosyncratic at times and some of his ideas are not repeated elsewhere in the tradition. That doesn't mean there wasn't an astrological mainstream on such issues. Especially, by the medieval and renaissance period.

Well, talking about that, see the list above...

Just why Aquarius becomes more fruitful than barren in Lilly's description of signs qualities is not entirely clear to me. One would have thought it would tend to barreness due to the Saturn rulership. But then Scorpio has a long tradition of being a fertile sign despite its association with the lesser malefic Mars. I personally think this may relate to the ancient idea that Mars had its joy in the sign of Scorpio. As a planet of the nocturnal sect Mars was thought to be more compatible in its nocturnal domicile of Scorpio. Intriguingly, Scorpio is the sign on the 5th cusp of the Thema Mundi with Mars in that house.

These lists have a number of peculiarities. While there is great agreement that the Water signs are the most fruitful, the Fire signs are not generally seen as particularly fertile. For some reason the sign Leo seems to be leading in this respect even though the Sun is representing fatherhood and creative power in general. Remember that in the Natural Houses, the 5th house is analogous not only to Leo but also to the Sun. Any limitations to Leo's fertility (if the idea holds a grain of truth in it) need not apply to this archetype as expressed in the wheel of the houses (which is all about to the world of physical creation).

It's sort of funny that you bring Lilly into play - because he is indeed an early source explicit on the Natural Houses! He is regarding the signs as their ?co-significators?. Deb even took this over into her highly praised book, along with the planetary joys.

I think in this regard my still uncommented comparison between the Natural Houses and the typical professions for the corresponding signs on my "Do House Traits Reflect Tropical Signs?" thread which I have started with Taurus is quite conclusive. Further examples are to follow.

Intriguingly, Scorpio is the sign on the 5th cusp of the Thema Mundi with Mars in that house.

This is interesting. It brings to mind Isis giving birth to Horus in the swamps of the island Khebit.

Michael