Sun Signs and Traditional Astrology

Hi Everyone,

Last night a member here directed me to a website called Archaic Astrology, where I read this very interesting article entitled "The Truth About Your Sun Sign":

http://www.archaicastrology.org/blog/2011/6/25/the-truth-about-your-star-sign.html

I was so happy to have come across this article because for the past few weeks I had been reading the "Anthologies" and taking a look also at "Tetrabiblos" and "Christian Astrology" and while there were personality description for the planets, I did not find much of the "traditional" traits we see associated with the Sun Signs in these works. So I wondered, "Hm, when did these traits which we've gotten so used to came to be?" And I was seeing that something just didn't fit in the overall picture. This article cleared that up perfectly for me.

But here's the thing - Would this mean that I'm not a Piscean, based on the traditional system, just because I was born on March? Some things would make sense, because I identify a lot with my Gemini Ascendant, and it seems at times that I do posses a lot more of this trait, which according to this article, the main criteria for determining the personality would be the Lord of the Ascendant and the Lord of the Geniture, so it would fit. But then again - the main reason why I came to astrology in the first place was because I saw a lot of similar characteristics between people who shared the same sun sign. Of course, there'd be times where I'd someone who simply did not show any of the typical traits of the Sun Sign, but most of the times yes, they would show. And I know I wasn't hallucinating or seeing things where there aren't any when I noticed a kind of pattern forming between people with the same sun sign. This would mean that I'd have to erase years of observation, which I don't think it's justified. So, how to reconcile that?

Interesting article.

The author's tone strikes me as more cynical than skeptical.
In fact, I'd say it's dripping with the sarcasm of conservatism.

To me, Alan Leo's re-interpretations of the signs do not sound significantly different from the traditional descriptions, -- just more clear and individualized; rather than listing a bunch of generic descriptors and letting them speak for themselves, he actually translates them into a unique interpretation for each sign. The results do not seem to contradict, but to clarify and re-focus, the more traditional terminology. It's a rather dramatic shift in perspective, -- in how we think about them -- but the signs themselves have not been changed.

I'm unfamiliar with Alan Leo's work, but I would imagine that, while he began with the Sun, he did not stop at the Sun. It would therefore be unfair to blame the trend of newspaper astrology on him.

Leo's innovations were made approximately around the time of the discovery of the planet Uranus. As Uranus is the planet of sudden breakthroughs, this makes perfect sense, and I see no reason to hold so tenaciously to tradition that we cannot allow such innovation to take place, in our time or any other.

In the ancient world, not much attention was paid to the individual. With the approach of the modern age, a great deal more importance has been placed on every single life. It makes sense that this is reflected in our more personal understandings of the signs, and of the emphasis placed on the Sun.

Moreover, the ancient world was OBSESSED with tradition. In many ways it had to be, for knowledge was not easily preserved and circulated. But this obsession would help to explain why innovations as substantial as Leo's were not evident until modern times.

Naturally, we do need to take the entire chart (all the planets, houses, etc.) into consideration. Exceptions abound. Nonetheless, I've found that the exceptions, while they may subvert our clear-cut astrological categories, do not disprove the rules.

Oh Jupiterasc,

Why did you place this doubt in my mind? Now I won't rest 'till I try to find as much as I can. I'll have to talk to my mother about this, but I don't know how much she'll remember.

Ok, just got off the phone. This was something that happened 21 years ago. She says she remembers entering into labor at around 5 in the morning, and can't remember with 100% precision, but she says she remembers going into the surgery room at about 10:00 AM. She said she had me through a cessarian. I might have been born at 10:30 instead of 10:45. The only other way I could do to try to check for a possibly more precise birth time is to actually go to the hospital I was born and ask how they do to record brith times. Luckily, I was born in a quite small town, and the hospital's also not that big. The doctor who brought me into the world's still alive and he's my grandmother's cousin, but he's quite old, and he's done so many births, I'm sure he won't remember mine. I could go to the hospital and check in on their procedures, especially as done 20 years ago when the town was even smaller, as there's a younger doctor there who's also a family friend, she might be a good person to ask. Thank you.

Someone saying they are whichever star sign is usually about as near useless to me that I wouldn't want to know.

I still consider myself as having a lot of the attributes of Gemini though..Having a Taurus ascendant wouldn't make sense to me. I often come across to people as being intelligent (and I know I am), I consider myself to be very communicative, I'm a very curious person, always reading a bit of everything and never attaching to any particulars, new knowledge is always attractive to me and I always have that thirst for the new, especially in regards to the areas of knowledge that appeal to me, I also change my ways of thinking very quickly and I can be "difficult to grasp" even to myself! etc. I just see myself as possessing these typical traits attributed to Gemini. I would also agree that my physical traits colaborate in that as well. But again, I'll try to find this out for sure!

I like that opening link, I'm currently exploring it! Thank you!

While it's logical to suggest that a hospital would have a greater interest in a newborn child and it's mother than the time of birth, I see no reason to place doubt on the efficiency of hospitals in general. Instead, I'd say in many developed nations they take such information seriously and have recorded such details meticioulsly for many decades, largely as a govermental decree. Local information and the helpful contribution of many members here over the years helps me keep faith in the hospital systems in developed nations at least.

If I'm going to kick the stool from underneath my friend - because I think it's a bad stool, then I have to give him another one to sit on - not just leave him on the floor.

I read the article of reference.

I have been studying astrology for over 40 years. I have read Leo, Lilly, Bonatti, Morin, Ptolemy.......etc etc. I have their works here in my library.

Lilly says that Aries is the diurnal house of Mars. Leo mentions specific personality traits of the sign...because it belongs to Mars. It is Cardinal Fire. Aries, as a sign, exhibits the qualities of Mars. Mars "rules" Aries, and any planet that is in his sign falls under his dominion and must conform to his "laws." He is the king of Aries.

I agree with the author of the article up to a point. I have said repeatedly that "Sun-sign astrology" is useless. But by that I do not mean that ascribing personality traits to the signs is useless. It is the giving all the meaning to the Sun, in a very simplistic way, that is useless.

Aries is adventurous, impetuous, ego-centric, naive, and all those other things. These traits are infused into any body (planet) that inhabits Aries. The problem is that the modern popular astrology says , "you have Sun in Aires"....and that is the end of it.

The author of the article is also correct in saying that the old astrologers used the lord of the Horoscope (Ascendant) and other powerful planets to typify people, rather than the sun. But he has just gone too far in his criticism.

Let's understand this. Astrology is based on astronomy. It does not depart from astronomy, it simply uses astronomical facts as symbols that can be used as correlates to terrestrial events.

So let's look at the Sun and a few facts about it as an astronomical body.
It is the Center of the Universe (the solar system). All other bodies inhabiting its vicinity (and in fact born of it) are subject to its field of gravity, orbit the central star, and in point of fact owe their life and identity to it. The Sun in reality is a huge sphere extending way out there....the two probes that flew by Jupiter (Voyager I & II) years ago just reached the edge of the "bubble"...the "surface" of the solar sphere of influence. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/06/voyager_edge_interstellar_space/]

An astrologer takes facts such as these and of them he creates symbols whose meanings are derived directly from astronomical fact. Mythology and other such things do not properly enter into the derivation of astrological symbolism at all. (New Age astrology is full of such nonsense. It is practiced by "astrologers" who don't understand astrology.)

So if the Sun is the Center of the solar system (let's call it the universe), then an astrologer will say that "the Sun symbolizes the center of anything." Because the sun generates heat and light, it symbolizes "generation" in all forms. (The Moon reflects and absorbs that generated light, so she is reflection (mirrors, silver, self-reflection......)

All of these attributes of the Sun, in their totality, correspond to the Spirit of Life within us, which shares these same qualities. And that is the source of the central position given the sun by Alan Leo (he was not the first, but was the first to gain huge popularity and therefore promote his ideas. Leo was a solid astrologer, despite his penchant for self-promotion.)

As a further example of how astrological symbols derive directly from the "astronomical" characteristics of the planet itself.....Moon:
The Moon governs tides in the sea. She therefore symbolizes all things that are tidal in nature; ups and downs (cyclic motions), comings and goings (the tide comes in, the tide goes out...).

The symbolism of each planet depends on its relative position in the solar system, the nature and periodicity of its orbit, the qualities of the body itself (as seen from Earth)...

Jupiter is the largest of all the planets; all of the other planets combined can fit into Jupiter. Jupiter's gravity is so powerful that bodies on the side of the Sun opposite this largest of all planets are held in their orbital positions because of it.

Jupiter symbolizes whales, elephants, temples and palaces built on high ground for all to see.....everything BIG.

So....the Sun represents the "Center of Self", just as the actual Sun is the center of the universe. That is why "my Sun is in Gemini" has importance.

But the lord of the horoscope (ruler of the sign on the Ascendant) is always important.

And then other planets may take a predominant position, that is "have power" in a horoscope. A planet rising or in the midheaven is always powerful. But there are many ways a planet comes to power (predominance) in a chart. There is always the Almuten, "the planet who rules by force". There are singletons and final dispositors......

Other things enter into interpretation. The overall form or pattern of the horoscopic chart describes the form, or psychological pattern, of the person. Preponderances of many kinds, such as those involving Qualities and Elements, are very important. Etc Etc.

To say that "nothing should be added to the ancient art of astrology" is nonsense. Quadrant houses were not introduced until around 200 AD, and over time they evolved. Lilly used Regiomontanus houses. Bonatti used Alcabitius I believe (I may be in error on this one -- it's not that important). Kepler introduced the Keplerian aspects (the minor aspects, which had not been used before) around 1600. Morinus introduced new methods of analysis and interpretation...........Solar returns (and other return charts) were probably not in use until around 800 AD, and came from the Arabic astrologers.

The author of that article is "coming from" an extreme of conservatism; he wants nothing to change, ever. His views are therefore somewhat distorted or askew. I would not trust him to teach me astrology.

byjove said:

I like that opening link, I'm currently exploring it! Thank you!
While it's logical to suggest that a hospital would have a greater interest in a newborn child and it's mother than the time of birth...

Click to expand...

It's simply commonsense that a hospital, being a medical facility has greater focus on the medical requirements and medical needs of a mother giving birth as well as the child being born.

byjove said:

....I see no reason to place doubt on the efficiency of hospitals in general...

Click to expand...

Hospitals are staffed by human beings and human beings are subject to error, therefore the efficacy or otherwise of 'hospitals in general' remains a variable. Hospitals are frequently sued by patients who have received dodgy treatment - therefore it is necessary to acknowledge that realistically speaking, hospitals have limitations

byjove said:

Instead, I'd say in many developed nations they take such information seriously and have recorded such details meticioulsly for many decades, largely as a govermental decree.

Click to expand...

No 'governmental decree' exists that could eliminate human error! Human error continues to exist, even in 'the developed world'

byjove said:

....and the helpful contribution of many members here over the years helps me keep faith in the hospital systems in developed nations at least

Click to expand...

Over the years, posts from members of this forum who work in hospitals - and who therefore have direct reliable experience - have commented from their own personal observation, that times of birth are recorded variously.... and in fact apparently sometimes several hours pass before the time of birth is officially written - fwiw IMO that's an important basic consideration to take into account when creating any natal chart because not to do so makes no sense

byjove said:

If I'm going to kick the stool from underneath my friend - because I think it's a bad stool, then I have to give him another one to sit on - not just leave him on the floor.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting analogy...if anyone is seated on an unstable stool it's logical to deduce that it is simply a matter of time before the unstable stool collapses without the necessity for anyone 'kicking it away'!

FWIW JMO if one notes one's friend is perchance seated on an unstable stool, it would be kinder to draw that fact to the friends attention and tell them that the stool is unstable... rather than watch one's friend possibly landing on the floor.

In order to stabilise the unsteady stool, Rectification is always an option! http://www.martingansten.com/btr.php

I have read posts on this forum from members who have rectified their own natal charts and so fwiw IMO, nothing has been 'kicked' away as you have suggested!

Practically speaking, for the purposes of Horoscopic astrology to have any potential value, the natal chart very reasonably MUST be based on a correct time of birth

Frequently astrology is criticised for 'being wrong' and if a person has calculated their chart using an inaccurate time of birth then – while that person continues to use that inaccurate chart - it is unreasonable to expect astrology to provide reliable answers.That's just my two cents worth and of course others could disagree

Birth time errors are possible. More than possible; probable. In most cases it won't matter much, as most of us here don't seem to be doing detailed work. As long as we get the right sign rising.

It's definitely something all astrologers should keep in mind. I don't think it's 'kicking the stool out' to make people aware of this. It's important.

Most birth times that need rectifying need to go back, in my (limited) experience. If someone is born with the ascendant in the early degrees of a sign, I will definitely check out a chart constructed with the previous sign rising too.

But here's the thing - Would this mean that I'm not a Piscean, based on the traditional system, just because I was born on March?

Click to expand...

No. But yes. 'I' don't think of myself as 'A Virgo' because 'I' is more than the sum of one of the parts.

There is a strong Virgoan emphasis in my chart, due to having the Sun, Venus, and (perhaps more importantly) Mercury in that sign. Most of the inner planets.

I still don't think of myself as a Virgo anymore.

I just don't think Sun signs are a very useful way to describe the actual details of individual people, the way they develop and change, the quirks and nuances they possess (or that possess them), that make them (really) distinguishable from other people.

Davi_Alan said:

And I know I wasn't hallucinating or seeing things where there aren't any when I noticed a kind of pattern forming between people with the same sun sign.

Click to expand...

How do you know? I'm not trying to offend. I think it's a question we should all ask ourselves, with all things astrology; am I seeing patterns or am I making them?

Perhaps you were associating traits with the Sun in Pisces that didn't strictly belong to the Sun in Pisces.

This would mean that I'd have to erase years of observation, which I don't think it's justified. So, how to reconcile that?

Click to expand...

There's no inherent need to 'erase' anything, perhaps a 'honing' or 'augmenting' is in order

Moog said:

I just don't think Sun signs are a very useful way to describe the actual details of individual people, the way they develop and change, the quirks and nuances they possess (or that possess them), that make them (really) distinguishable from other people

Click to expand...

Individual traits vary amongst those with the same Sun sign for many reasons, one being that those born during different years generally have the ruler of the particular Sun sign located in different signs.

Even those born the same year may still have their Sun sign ruler in different signs if that planet changes signs during their birth month so then, that could account for some of those puzzling differences you noted but could not explain at the time.

Davi_Alan said:

...And I know I wasn't hallucinating or seeing things where there aren't any when I noticed a kind of pattern forming between people with the same sun sign

Click to expand...

Moog said:

... Perhaps you were associating traits with the Sun in Pisces that didn't strictly belong to the Sun in Pisces

Click to expand...

Exactly. Davi_Alan, consider for instance, that these apparently 'Sun Sign similarities' may have been due to Sun Sign planetary rulers in the same sign or some other factor you have not as yet noticed?

Davi_Alan said:

This would mean that I'd have to erase years of observation, which I don't think it's justified. So, how to reconcile that?

Click to expand...

Your posted natal chart is dated 1991 so how many years of observation are 'erasable'?

In any event, as an example - an astrologer on this forum has said that after using Placidus for either two or three decades, he then changed to Whole Sign House system as he found it provides him with good results - he said he got good results from Placidus as well, BUT that the results are even better when he changed to Whole Sign Houses which he has been using now for at least a decade

In any event as Moog says

Moog said:

There's no inherent need to 'erase' anything, perhaps a 'honing' or 'augmenting' is in order

Click to expand...