Why does Saturn rule Aquarius?

waybread

Well-known member
David, please read Deborah Houlding's book, Houses: Temples of the Sky. She owns the Skyscript website, which contains many interesting articles, mostly but not entirely on traditional astrology. She might have posted something there.

In my experience, the 9th house-Sagittarius-Jupiter is one of the better sign-house match-ups. First house-Aries-Mars is the worst. Unless you happen to have Aries rising or Mars in the first house. If you've got Pisces rising with Venus in the first, it is a terrible match-up.

Again, medical astrology is a special exception.
 

david starling

Well-known member
David, please read Deborah Houlding's book, Houses: Temples of the Sky. She owns the Skyscript website, which contains many interesting articles, mostly but not entirely on traditional astrology. She might have posted something there.

In my experience, the 9th house-Sagittarius-Jupiter is one of the better sign-house match-ups. First house-Aries-Mars is the worst. Unless you happen to have Aries rising or Mars in the first house. If you've got Pisces rising with Venus in the first, it is a terrible match-up.

Again, medical astrology is a special exception.

I will peruse her book, which I haven't read--sounds interesting from the title. I'm also going to read Liz Greene's "Saturn: A New Look at an Old Devil". Many years ago, when I was still "buying into" the prevailing view that Saturn is the great villain and cause of all the woes of the world, I saw it in a bookstore, and remember thinking it was a gimmick, like painting a smiley face on a nuclear bomb! Now, from a review I just read, it looks like it may contain some valuable insights.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
In that case, a "hostile environment" from Saturn's viewpoint would be H11. There is a great deal of speculation in historical articles I've read on the internet. Seems you often have to be your own arbitrator of whose version is "true". I haven't found anything on WHEN the Modalities were first introduced. Just that "Mutable" was once called "Common". Don't know when that change occurred either.

I think the cardinal, mutable change came about in the early to mid 20th century, but don't quote me on that. I believe it was part and parcel of modern astrology.

I've run across those terms a few times in translation of older books. That's a general convention, though not all translators follow it.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I think the cardinal, mutable change came about in the early to mid 20th century, but don't quote me on that. I believe it was part and parcel of modern astrology.

I've run across those terms a few times in translation of older books. That's a general convention, though not all translators follow it.

The term "Movable" was used in place of Cardinal, and "Common" in place of Mutable in ancient times, according to D.H.'s glossary regarding Traditional Astrology. "Fixed" remains fixed at Fixed. :biggrin:
 

waybread

Well-known member
I think the cardinal, mutable change came about in the early to mid 20th century, but don't quote me on that. I believe it was part and parcel of modern astrology.

I've run across those terms a few times in translation of older books. That's a general convention, though not all translators follow it.

Oddity, this also goes back to Hellenistic astrology.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/cardinals.html

Cardinal signs marked the beginning of the 4 solar seasons.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/fixeds.html

Fixed signs were intermediate, indicating months when weather patterns were relatively stable.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/mutable.html

The mutable or bicorporeal signs marked the end of the season, and anticipation of change.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Oddity, this also goes back to Hellenistic astrology.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/cardinals.html

Cardinal signs marked the beginning of the 4 solar seasons.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/fixeds.html

Fixed signs were intermediate, indicating months when weather patterns were relatively stable.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/mutable.html

The mutable or bicorporeal signs marked the end of the season, and anticipation of change.

Tropically, it's obvious that the Sun's location at the Equinoxes and Soltices mark the first points of what are now known as the "Cardinal" signs, but (according to D.H.) were originally called "Movable". Interesting that they do move relative to the stars, due to Precession of the Equinoxes!
 

Oddity

Well-known member
Thanks, David, they were indeed referred to as moveable, fixed, and common. Moveable got changed to cardinal, and common got changed to mutable.
 

savanna

Well-known member
Very informative thread.

I personally like to give equal weight to the traditional rulers and modern rulers when looking at charts.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
The term "Movable" was used in place of Cardinal, and "Common" in place of Mutable in ancient times, according to D.H.'s glossary regarding Traditional Astrology. "Fixed" remains fixed at Fixed. :biggrin:
In vedic astrology they still called that way (movable, fixed and common/dual).
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

In that case, a "hostile environment" from Saturn's viewpoint would be H11.
Not necessarily - IF Aquarius, Capricorn or Libra on cusp of H11 :smile:
i.e.
a traditionally "hostile environment" for Saturn is a HOT environment
because traditionally
Saturn represents EXTREME COLD
hence
Aries and Leo are signs with a
"hostile environment" for Saturn

 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Hi,
How does that work then? You give each sign two rulers?
Very informative thread.

I personally like to give equal weight to the traditional rulers and modern rulers when looking at charts.

It could be that the definition of ‘modern’ changed as well and became too cardinally moveable - meaning - just keep changing everything traditional, and then it seems more modern.:D
Thanks, David, they were indeed referred to as moveable, fixed, and common. Moveable got changed to cardinal, and common got changed to mutable.
 

david starling

Well-known member
There is a discernable pattern in how the outers were assigned rulership, although it wasn't given as a reason at the time: For most moderns, Signs were already typically numbered 1 through 12, beginning with Aries and ending with Pisces. So, taking that into consideration, Saturn, the outermost traditional planet, ruled Signs 10 and 11; next outermost, Jupiter, ruled Signs 9 and 12; and, next was Mars, ruling Signs 1 and 8. And, as each new planet was added, the outermost traditional planet still ruling two Signs lost its higher-numbered Sign to the next modern outer, in sequence. The innermost planets, Mercury and Venus, which appear as both morning and evening versions, kept their traditional dual-SIgn rulerships.
 

petosiris

Banned
Because traditional astrology views Aquarius as this:

...''Aquarius is the celestial sign which is masculine, solid, anthropomorphic, somewhat damp, single. It is mute, quite cold, free, upward-trending, feminizing, unchanging, base, with few offspring, the cause of troubles arising from athletic training, carrying burdens, or work in hard materials, an artisan, public. Men born under this sign are malicious, haters of their own families, incorrigible, self-willed, deceitful, tricky, concealing everything, misanthropic, godless, accusers, betrayers of reputations and the truth, envious, petty, occasionally generous (because of <this sign’s> flow of water), uncontrollable.''... - Vettius Valens translation by Riley

If there is any merit to the Aquarius ''golden'' age symbolism, it will probably be related to Solid/Fixed signs. Why should the Northern Spring Equinox be any more special than the rest of equinoxes and solstices?

Or maybe we really are at the brink of some Kali Yuga, dissapearance of Buddhism or satanic kingdom as those various ancient texts warn us about. To be fair the above description would fit those views.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
While Origen (2nd/3rd century CE) mentioned that "the ancients" had calculated Astrological (or World) Ages, he did not mention how they were astrologically calculated (whether via sidereal or tropical criteria); however, with the Greco-Roman and later Arabic astrologers, World "Ages" (or long time period rulerships) were calculated exclusively using the tropical signs (rather than the sidereal constellations); see for example, Abu-Mashar's "The Thousands" (c.7th/8th century CE; also see references to this subject in al-Birunni's "Elements of Astrology" (11th century CE) and Ibn Ezra's "Beginning of Wisdom" (12th century CE)...

Do you have a quote by Origen?

Thanks, David, they were indeed referred to as moveable, fixed, and common. Moveable got changed to cardinal, and common got changed to mutable.

The earliest (Hellenistic) mention of them is ''Tropical'' (related to turns or changes), Solid and Double-Bodied. I argue that the conceptualization was at least partly sidereal and unconnected with tropicalism - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showpost.php?p=869451&postcount=117 .
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Because traditional astrology views Aquarius as this:

...'' Men born under this sign...."

Or maybe we really are at the brink of some Kali Yuga, dissapearance of Buddhism or satanic kingdom as those various ancient texts warn us about. To be fair the above description would fit those views.

What would constitute being "born under this sign"? Probably not Sun-sign Astrology, although I suppose it's possible.

The Kali Yuga, by most accounts, is ending, not beginning. It's about a separation between the Mundane, materialistic perspective and the Spiritual and has resulted in Spiritual darkness for over 5000 years. So, prophecies of an uplifting Aquarian Age are in line with the transition OUT of the Kali Yuga which is already in progress.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
What would constitute being "born under this sign"? Probably not Sun-sign Astrology, although I suppose it's possible.

The Kali Yuga, by most accounts, is ending, not beginning.

It's about a separation between the Mundane, materialistic perspective
and the Spiritual and has resulted in Spiritual darkness for over 5000 years.
So, prophecies of an uplifting Aquarian Age are in line with
the transition OUT of the Kali Yuga which is already in progress
.
Sirius flaw to that theory however
is
Kali Yuga began approximately five thousand years ago
and it has a duration of 432,000 years

leaving us with 427,000 years until the end of the present Kali Yuga
:smile:
 

david starling

Well-known member
Sirius flaw to that theory however
is
Kali Yuga began approximately five thousand years ago
and it has a duration of 432,000 years

leaving us with 427,000 years until the end of the present Kali Yuga
:smile:

That's one version. The Yugas get shorter and shorter though, with the Kali Yuga being the shortest of all. I suggest reading up on the opinions of those who have studied the matter thoroughly.
Pessimists tend to have a rather grim worldview, and to seek out any theories which suggest things will not improve at all, and possibly even worsen. :lol:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
That's one version. The Yugas get shorter and shorter though, with the Kali Yuga being the shortest of all.
I suggest reading up on the opinions of those who have studied the matter thoroughly.
Pessimists tend to have a rather grim worldview, and
to seek out any theories which suggest things will not improve at all, and
possibly even worsen.
:lol:

054e935.jpg
 
Top