Ancient Capricorn was a water sign

Whoam1

Well-known member
Many of you know that I've learned to appreciate this sign, weither it is my Sun and rising sign as tropical astrology would dictate, or as a dominant sign containing Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and the southern Node of the Moon as my sidreal chart would speak.

I'd like to just respect the roots of this sign and modernize it to today. Capricorn in the classical days of astrology was said to be the harbinger of storms and therefore the ruler of the Sea. It's mood, even in modern astrology, is said to shift dramatically much like it's glyph and the current if the Sea.

In Vedic astrology this sign is more often shown as a hybrid alligator or Crocodile rather than the goat it is shown by in modern astrology today. It is called Makara, meaning crocodile, an animal comfortable on land or in sea. The sign was said to be on the spiritual journey of going from materialism to finding the true value in its own subconscious depths.

It is also compared to the Summarian God Enki, part man part goat, later known as Ea. Who is God of Wisdom, Magic, and Water. However water also entailed semen, making Capricorn under Ea a highly sexualized sign.

This leads into the more modern mythology of Pan, who turned into a fish trying to escape an adversary, but failed to transform in complete, making the goat headed fish we view Capricorn as today. He also is highly sexed much like Ea, look at the word horny today for an even more modern example.

I think it's quiet sad we often "chop off Capricorns tail" to make him fit into our evenly distributed elemental zodiac charts today. One could argue Capricorns don't get emotional enough to be a water sign, however people like MLK are surely emotional heavy beings. This on top of the Stormy temper that Capricorns display, I'm not convinced that Capricorn is as earthy as we try to say in Modern astrology today.
 

waybread

Well-known member
The constellation and sign are two different things.

The constellation Capricorn was in a part of the sky anciently called "the sea," which included Aquarius, Pisces, Cetus, and Eridanus.

Capricorn is on the edge of this group, which probably account's for the sea goat's mammal front half and fish hind quarters.

One book you might enjoy if you haven't seen it already is Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore.
 

petosiris

Banned
In Hellenistic astrology it was also known as a moist/watery sign alongside Cancer, Aquarius and Pisces - Dorotheus, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Palchus and others.

Capricorn is universally licentious, but it is infertile according to most authors not because of Saturn, but because the image does not look to be able to have children (Sagittarius is infertile according to some for the same reason, even though Jupiter otherwise signifies fertility).

The constellation and sign are two different things.

That's a shame. Signs were also once images/living beings.
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
In modern greeko astrology it may have been sterile but I doubt it as it is the father sign. In retrospect I think Capricorn is of both genders. As a tropical Capricorn and sidereal dominant Capricorn i see it still as water not earth. Although unaspected Neptune in Capricorn may make this show more apparently.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
In Hellenistic astrology it was also known as a moist/watery sign alongside Cancer, Aquarius and Pisces - Dorotheus, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Palchus and others.

Capricorn is universally licentious, but it is infertile according to most authors not because of Saturn, but because the image does not look to be able to have children (Sagittarius is infertile according to some for the same reason, even though Jupiter otherwise signifies fertility).

Quote:
The constellation and sign are two different things.

That's a shame. Signs were also once images/living beings.
Indeed - when most people thought the universe was a living being
it was "The Norm" to imagine tiny points of light they saw in the night sky
as being grouped into separate, distinct sets of 'Images'.
These 'Images' were made up of separate stars which
- in the opinion of the ancient people of this planet :smile:
- seemed to be grouped together.
Thousands of years ago, on various parts of the planet Earth
different cultures imaginatively 'connected the dots' of the tiny points of light
that they thought were close to each other
and personified them as 'Mythical Beings'
and narrated stories about the lives of these Mythical Beings
.


The Mythical Beings and the stories of their lives
varied from culture to culture.
Different cultures imagined different images in the patterns
of the stars of the night sky.
The ancient people of this planet did not know
that these tiny points of light were hundreds
- perhaps even thousands
- of light years distant from each other
.


Former constellations
are constellations that are no longer recognized
by the International Astronomical Union
for various reasons.
Many of these constellations existed for long periods of time
even centuries in many cases
which means they still have a large historical value
and can be found on older star charts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_constellations

The oldest description of the constellations as we know them
comes from a poem called Phaenomena
written by Greek poet Aratus 270 B.C.
and it is clear from the poem that the constellations mentioned
originated long before Aratus' time.


Some detective work reveals a plausible origin.
Firstly, Aratus' constellations excluded any near the south celestial pole
because that was always below the horizon of the ancient constellation-makers.
From the size of this uncharted area of the sky
we can determine that the people responsible for the original constellations
lived near a latitude of 36° north which is south of Greece
and north of Egypt
but similar to the latitude of the ancient Babylonians and Sumerians.


Because of a "wobble" of the Earth's axis of rotation
the position of the celestial poles changes slowly with time
- which is a phenomenon known as precession.
The constellation-free zone is not centered exactly on the south celestial pole
instead the uncharted area is centered on the place in the sky
where the south celestial pole would have been around the year 2000 B.C.

This date matches the time of the Babylonians and Sumerians.
So it seems likely that the Greek constellations originated
with the Sumerians and Babylonians.


From there, knowledge of the constellations somehow made its way to Egypt
- perhaps through the Minoans on Crete who had contact with the Babylonians
and settled in Egypt after an explosive volcanic eruption
destroyed their civilization, and from there early Greek scholars first heard
about the constellations and wrote about them.
http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/astro/...ation.faq.html

When most ancient cultures looked at the night sky
they saw 'pictures' aka 'Images' in the stars.
T
he earliest known efforts to catalogue the stars date to cuneiform
texts
i.e. Sumerian/Babylonian/Assyrian texts and artefacts
dating back roughly 6000 years.
These remnants, found in the valley of the Euphrates River
suggest that the ancients observing the heavens
saw the lion, the bull, and the scorpion in the stars.

a link to a web page on origins of writing in Mesopotamia
http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/writing/story/sto_set.html
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
I know signs like Libra were actual once Scorpios claws. I do not respect even sidereal astrology as much as I used to, once I found out that they too use signs that are not baised on constellations. They just can't convince me that some scientific force for example makes my Jupiter (in the Pisces constellation) magically be in the sign of Aries. We cannot shape the sky to make it easier for ourselves.
 

petosiris

Banned
I know signs like Libra were actual once Scorpios claws. I do not respect even sidereal astrology as much as I used to, once I found out that they too use signs that are not baised on constellations. They just can't convince me that some scientific force for example makes my Jupiter (in the Pisces constellation) magically be in the sign of Aries. We cannot shape the sky to make it easier for ourselves.

The Sun is with the image of the Ram for 30 days, with the image of the Bull for 30 days and so on. So while Jupiter in your nativity is with the Northern Fish of Pisces, that part is alloted to the degrees of the Ram and subsequently Mars.

However, in the Egyptian bounds, Jupiter is in domicile. Critodemus and Valens both say that this bound is advancing and the latter says that it is prolific.

The ecliptic is real, the fixed stars are real and the turnings (solstices) of the Sun are real. Choose wisely how you are going to use them.
 

petosiris

Banned
Former constellations
are constellations that are no longer recognized
by the International Astronomical Union
for various reasons.
Many of these constellations existed for long periods of time
even centuries in many cases
which means they still have a large historical value
and can be found on older star charts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_constellations

All constellations Ptolemy mapped are still in use with the exception of Argo which was split into three constellations of Carina, Puppis and Vela, because 19th and 20th century astronomers found the constellation too large to work with.

What was not used by Ptolemy and ancient astronomers, are the modern conventions of square territories. When the astrologers say the mouth of this constellation or that one, we do not know the exact place they meant, but only an approximate one.

The constellation with lines is one thing, but the image you see is another.
 
Last edited:

Whoam1

Well-known member
The Sun is with the image of the Ram for 30 days, with the image of the Bull for 30 days and so on. So while Jupiter in your nativity is with the Northern Fish of Pisces, that part is alloted to the degrees of the Ram and subsequently Mars.

However, in the Egyptian bounds, Jupiter is in domicile. Critodemus and Valens both say that this bound is advancing and the latter says that it is prolific.

The ecliptic is real, the fixed stars are real and the turnings (solstices) of the Sun are real. Choose wisely how you are going to use them.

Thanks. I'm looking at the actual sky at my birth, for example my Saturn is closer to Cetus than Aries, so I would focus on Aries traits that are closer to the Cetus description when describing my Saturn in Aries. Another example would be Ophiuchous mercury, it's included in the Scorpio sign. Libra Venus in Scorpio sign. So if focus on the More Pisceian of Aries traits to describe my Jupiter.

However if Aries and Scorpio are both ruled by Mars, and my Mars is exalted, then I would by nature be largely Capricorn. (Especially because Capricorns other planet is Saturn which aspects both luminaries).

This brings me back to my point of Capricorn really being a water sign. Weither it is through my Sidreal Mars or my Tropical Sun and A.C. I experience the pull of the Sea-goat, I can say the connection with water is immense.
 

petosiris

Banned
Aries currently touches the Sun with his legs, Cetus does not with his head. The ecliptic consists of 12 images, because the Sun has, currently and possibly for thousands of years empower those 12 images every year.

Lots of people have stars above Cetus. It will have an effect if it is rising. According to Ptolemy, the stars of Cetus are like Saturn, probably because it is moist like Capricorn and Aquarius, and is as terrifying as Capricorn.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
In Hellenistic astrology it was also known as a moist/watery sign alongside Cancer, Aquarius and Pisces - Dorotheus, Ptolemy, Hephaistio, Palchus and others.

Capricorn is universally licentious, but it is infertile according to most authors not because of Saturn, but because the image does not look to be able to have children (Sagittarius is infertile according to some for the same reason, even though Jupiter otherwise signifies fertility).

Which is why I practice modern astrology. I have a lot of interest in Hellenistic astrology, as you know, but I can't take this "licentious" stuff seriously. If anyone really wants to feel rotten about being a sun-Capricorn or Capricorn rising, start with Valens's nasty description of the sign. (Anthologies, ca 150 CE.)

However, apparently Augustus and Julius Caesar were proud enough of having Capricorn moons that they had Capricorn's image struck on their coins.

In modern moon-sign planting, Capricorn is seen as somewhat fertile. Not as good as the water signs or Taurus, but as conferring extra hardiness and ability to withstand harsh conditions. (See Louise Riotte's book, Astrological Gardening.)

I have Capricorn on the cusp of my 5th house (Placidus) with 3 opposed planets in Aquarius in my 5th, and I had two wonderful children.

Then Virgo is supposedly infertile because a virgin by definition would be a woman not sexually active; but the constellation does look just a bit like a woman lying on her back. Her stars Spica and Vindemiatrix connoted the grain and grape harvests, respectively.

That's a shame. Signs were also once images/living beings.

Not signs, even back-when. They were always 30-degree sectors. Constellations, yes; and we can still view them this way today.
 

Attachments

  • caesar coin capricorn moon.jpg
    caesar coin capricorn moon.jpg
    267.2 KB · Views: 38

Whoam1

Well-known member
Aries currently touches the Sun with his legs, Cetus does not with his head. The ecliptic consists of 12 images, because the Sun has, currently and possibly for thousands of years empower those 12 images every year.

Lots of people have stars above Cetus. It will have an effect if it is rising. According to Ptolemy, the stars of Cetus are like Saturn, probably because it is moist like Capricorn and Aquarius, and is as terrifying as Capricorn.

Except the placement of Saturn when I was born was actually below the elliptic, it was physically in Cetus. I agree with Ptolemys reasoning and conclusion (he used common sense).
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
Which is why I practice modern astrology. I have a lot of interest in Hellenistic astrology, as you know, but I can't take this "licentious" stuff seriously. If anyone really wants to feel rotten about being a sun-Capricorn or Capricorn rising, start with Valens's nasty description of the sign. (Anthologies, ca 150 CE.)

However, apparently Augustus and Julius Caesar were proud enough of having Capricorn moons that they had Capricorn's image struck on their coins.

In modern moon-sign planting, Capricorn is seen as somewhat fertile. Not as good as the water signs or Taurus, but as conferring extra hardiness and ability to withstand harsh conditions. (See Louise Riotte's book, Astrological Gardening.)

I have Capricorn on the cusp of my 5th house (Placidus) with 3 opposed planets in Aquarius in my 5th, and I had two wonderful children.

Then Virgo is supposedly infertile because a virgin by definition would be a woman not sexually active; but the constellation does look just a bit like a woman lying on her back. Her stars Spica and Vindemiatrix connoted the grain and grape harvests, respectively.



Not signs, even back-when. They were always 30-degree sectors. Constellations, yes; and we can still view them this way today.

The fertility does not matter to me, I'm gay.

The nature of Capricorn is moist. The emotions are hidden at times to cover weakness but they are there, this is especially expressed in the outbursts of stormy rage that more Martial Capricorns display (Note Capricorn is of nature of Mars AND Saturn and there are people who lean one way or another, I however am fairly evenly split between the two.)

I also note pans influence on Capricorn, the people who are Capricorns are by nature rather wild and could connect to the earth because of him, that being said pan could shift his forms with ease much like going through water, therefore I draw the same conclusion.
 

petosiris

Banned
Which is why I practice modern astrology. I have a lot of interest in Hellenistic astrology, as you know, but I can't take this "licentious" stuff seriously. If anyone really wants to feel rotten about being a sun-Capricorn or Capricorn rising, start with Valens's nasty description of the sign. (Anthologies, ca 150 CE.)

According to Rhetorius who gives similar delineations (both attributed to Teucer by some scholars, but I was informed by Levente Laszlo that David Pingree thought that the attribution is not certain in the light of many interpolations from Ptolemy, Hephaistio and other sources) those are to be used with the ascendant and the Moon sign, not with the Sun. Just for information (the idea that everyone born in the same month has similar personality never struck the ancient mind).

I have Capricorn on the cusp of my 5th house (Placidus) with 3 opposed planets in Aquarius in my 5th, and I had two wonderful children.

Then Virgo is supposedly infertile because a virgin by definition would be a woman not sexually active.

Yes that is correct. The Lion is also thought barren Leo because ''Lyons bring forth Young rarely'' as Lilly says. Scorpio is fertile on the other hand possibly because ''litter sizes average 25, with a range of 1 to more than 100''. That is my conjecture as Ptolemy says it is fertile even though he does not think the sign is moist or that Mars is indicative of children (it actually is contrary, it signifies abortion).
https://www.britannica.com/animal/scorpion

Most Hellenistic astrologers took the images literally. Teucer and Firmicus think that the Charioteer signifies racers and Dorotheus thinks that ''If the Sun is eclipsed in Aries, I say that this distress and affliction is among sheep; if it is in Sagittarius, I say it is among work-horses and horses; if it is in Leo, I say it is among lions; and similarly is it said in all the sorts of signs.'' - Carmen Astrologicum, translation by David Pingree

And I say many times, mock this primitive approach all you want, but you can't deny that the vast majority of traditional (and some modern) astrological properties are sidereal in rationale. Things like moist and terrestrial, winged, incomplete, royal, servile, double-bodied, fixed, changeable, mute, vocal, articulate, quadrupedal, human, enigmatic (Sagittarius and Capricorn as they are hard to describe in words - fantastical), scaly, humpbacked, blindness because of star clusters, rising backwards, fertile, infertile and so on I would ask myself whether the tropical zodiac actually embodies these properties today. These are derived from and logical in a sidereal zodiac and they have no clear rationale in a tropical zodiac (aside from the usual envy and sophistry of the ''constellations'' embodying tropical properties for some historical period).

Ptolemy makes no exception. He says ''They have also attached other descriptions to the signs, derived from their shapes; I refer, for example, to "four-footed," "terrestrial," "commanding," "fecund," and similar appellations. These, since their reason and their significance are directly derived, we think it superfluous to enumerate, since the quality resulting from such conformations can be explained in connection with those predictions wherein it is obviously useful.'' - Tetrabiblos 1.12, translation by Robbins, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/home.html

What shapes is he talking about? Do tropical images have shapes? See also Tetrabiblos 2.7.

So you are Virgo rising? Hellenistically for children you would examine Jupiter, Venus and Mercury (whether they are operative, inoperative and whole sign aspects by benefics and malefics), the V or X place (the IV and XI as well according to Ptolemy and Valens..., I prefer the X) and the Lot of Children (which would be more controversial than the previous as there is no agreement amongst authors on one formula, I use Jupiter to Venus which is for marriage and daughters exclusively in Valens, most use for children - Jupiter to Saturn by day and reverse by night). No author said that Virgo rising means infertile nativities.
 
Last edited:

ConfusedCrab

Well-known member
Interesting read!

So if the goat had a fish tail, you belive it would be similar to Pisces?

I’ve never gotten close enough to a Capricorn to form an opinion on the subject other than a few things I’ve read up on here and there.

Although I sense that you have a highly perceptive quality to you & emotional intelligence.
 

Whoam1

Well-known member
Interesting read!

So if the goat had a fish tail, you belive it would be similar to Pisces?

I’ve never gotten close enough to a Capricorn to form an opinion on the subject other than a few things I’ve read up on here and there.

Although I sense that you have a highly perceptive quality to you & emotional intelligence.

Thanks for responding! My Neptune aspects the eye of Capricorn (my Neptune is Conj. Oculus almost the same latitude and longitude) this is the only body Neptune aspects (yes Neptune is unaspected in my chart). [Mars directly aspects the tail of Capricorn and Uranus the back.] Eye of the storm maybe? I'm an empath and have a good emotional quotient. Neptune is my only unaspected planet, it doesn't even have minor aspects and the nearest orb id have to use is at least 7 degrees.
 

waybread

Well-known member
In modern greeko astrology it may have been sterile but I doubt it as it is the father sign. In retrospect I think Capricorn is of both genders. As a tropical Capricorn and sidereal dominant Capricorn i see it still as water not earth. Although unaspected Neptune in Capricorn may make this show more apparently.

If you adhere to the old system of masculine and feminine signs, Capricorn is a feminine sign. (Earth, water=feminine; air, water=masculine.)
 

waybread

Well-known member
WhoamI, many gay men and lesbians have children. There is a way that astrology has come handed down to us. Modern astrology depending on the practitioner, is roughly a third to a half consistent with traditional western astrology.

Petosiris, I'm not sure where the disconnect is about signs vs. constellations. As you know, sidereal signs are not co-equal with constellations. Signs are mathematical constructs. I have to think that a Hellenistic astrologer's calling a sign crooked or straight, and so on, is a residue from the older constellational astrology. We see this residue in meanings attached to fixed stars, and in Manilius's description of a newborn's future career as related to constellations rising at birth, many of them off the ecliptic.

Where have I "mocked" the sidereal zodiac, or called it "primitive"??? These are not my words or my beliefs.

I have to think the Hellenistic system of referring to signs as through they were constellations is because anciently, when clocks were primitive, the moving constellations, stars, asterisms, and the sun were used as clocks and calendars. I don't think that the shift from constellations to signs occurred all at once, automatically. Signs were developed by Babylonian astrologers to facilitate eclipse prediction. This leaves out a lot of other methods that may have had a different history.

A National Park ranger in southern Utah once showed me a live female scorpion he had isolated in a specimen container. Amazingly, despite being an arthropod and not viviparous, this scorpion had tiny babies on her back, and if one fell off, she scooped it back on. I don't know how many young a scorpion would have at one time, but it seemed like a lot, and it might well vary by species.

So far as I know, most traditional western astrologers today use the tropical zodiac.

As we've discussed elsewhere, in Ptolemy's day, the sidereal and tropical signs were more or less co-equal.

Basically my chart does not show a big propensity for having children. If I use whole signs instead of Placidus, I have an unaspected (discounting Neptune) Jupiter in Capricorn in the 5th, in its fall and with no essential dignity. Venus conjuncts Mercury in Aquarius in the 6th, closely opposed by the moon in Leo in the 12th. My children are in their 30s now: one son, one daughter. And one adorable little grandson.

This is why I am skeptical of determining fertility and childbearing from nativities.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
OK, guys-- which zodiacal constellation do you see in my attachment here?

So much for the "reality" of constellations.
 

Attachments

  • Aquarius stars only.png
    Aquarius stars only.png
    10 KB · Views: 48
Top