The Sun has now slipped into the sector of the zodiac called Aquarius; it does so every year around 20 January and remains there until around 19 February (give or take a day).
I haven't changed my view that most people born when the Sun was in Aquarius, or with Moon or ascendant in this sign, do not fit standard textbook descriptions of Aquarius. Around this time in January 2008 I wrote "Real-life Non-textbook Aquarians"; in 2009: "Aquarius Stripped". The position of Uranus (modern ruler of Aquarius) in a natal chart may have much to do with how stereotypically Aquarian a person appears to be. Or the fact that other planets and signs are more prominent - closer to the angles (ascendant/descendant, midheaven/nadir), or perhaps a bundle of planets place emphasis on a different sign.....or for a variety of other reasons, it's unwise to expect textbook descriptions to fit.
Pick up any book on popular astrology, believe what's said about Aquarius, and you'll expect anybody born late January to mid-February to be rebellious, eccentric, cold and unemotional, independent, a lover of groups (yes, a contradiction), clever, inventive, analytical, and a radical know-it-all. My real-life experience of Sun Aquarius people denies most of that, as explained in the two posts linked above.
How did Aquarius come to acquire the reputation of endowing such peculiar traits on its natives? Because astrologers of the past chose to give a newly discovered planet with an eccentric orbit the rulership of Aquarius, which had traditionally been Saturn's territory, along with neighbouring sign Capricorn. I don't understand why the three outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) had to be allocated rulership of signs. Why could they not have simply been classed as generational planets, leaving traditional rulership allocations in place? It seems like pure arrogance on the part of whoever decided new rulership allocations.
Uranus does reflect eccentricity, because of its peculiar orbit. Eccentricity is then extended to embrace radical thought, rebelliousness, change, etc. All this is dumped, willy-nilly, upon Aquarius. Why? Because astrologers wanted one planet per sign? That's dubious reasoning.
If Uranus is linked by close aspect or is in a strong position in the chart of a Sun Aquarian, or for that matter in the chart of a person born when the Sun was elsewhere in the zodiac, then yes, they could well exhibit those eccentric, rebellious traits. Uranus is the key to them, not Aquarius. (My personal view, of course).
Two incontrovertible facts about Aquarius are that is is an Air sign and a Fixed sign - mentally oriented (Air)so there's natural intelligence and a kind of stubborn attitude (Fixed). Comparing it with other Air signs, and other Fixed signs can throw up clear and reliable areas of difference. For instance, Gemini is Mutable Air, and quite like Aquarius in many ways - but not at all stubborn. Taurus is Fixed Earth, and equally stubborn as Aquarius, but isn't nearly as mentally-focused.
I often think that the elements and modes are by far the most reliable yardstick for describing the signs. Anything outside of their ambits are subjective best guesses, extensions, frills, and can be unreliable.
I haven't changed my view that most people born when the Sun was in Aquarius, or with Moon or ascendant in this sign, do not fit standard textbook descriptions of Aquarius. Around this time in January 2008 I wrote "Real-life Non-textbook Aquarians"; in 2009: "Aquarius Stripped". The position of Uranus (modern ruler of Aquarius) in a natal chart may have much to do with how stereotypically Aquarian a person appears to be. Or the fact that other planets and signs are more prominent - closer to the angles (ascendant/descendant, midheaven/nadir), or perhaps a bundle of planets place emphasis on a different sign.....or for a variety of other reasons, it's unwise to expect textbook descriptions to fit.
Pick up any book on popular astrology, believe what's said about Aquarius, and you'll expect anybody born late January to mid-February to be rebellious, eccentric, cold and unemotional, independent, a lover of groups (yes, a contradiction), clever, inventive, analytical, and a radical know-it-all. My real-life experience of Sun Aquarius people denies most of that, as explained in the two posts linked above.
How did Aquarius come to acquire the reputation of endowing such peculiar traits on its natives? Because astrologers of the past chose to give a newly discovered planet with an eccentric orbit the rulership of Aquarius, which had traditionally been Saturn's territory, along with neighbouring sign Capricorn. I don't understand why the three outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto) had to be allocated rulership of signs. Why could they not have simply been classed as generational planets, leaving traditional rulership allocations in place? It seems like pure arrogance on the part of whoever decided new rulership allocations.
Uranus does reflect eccentricity, because of its peculiar orbit. Eccentricity is then extended to embrace radical thought, rebelliousness, change, etc. All this is dumped, willy-nilly, upon Aquarius. Why? Because astrologers wanted one planet per sign? That's dubious reasoning.
If Uranus is linked by close aspect or is in a strong position in the chart of a Sun Aquarian, or for that matter in the chart of a person born when the Sun was elsewhere in the zodiac, then yes, they could well exhibit those eccentric, rebellious traits. Uranus is the key to them, not Aquarius. (My personal view, of course).
Two incontrovertible facts about Aquarius are that is is an Air sign and a Fixed sign - mentally oriented (Air)so there's natural intelligence and a kind of stubborn attitude (Fixed). Comparing it with other Air signs, and other Fixed signs can throw up clear and reliable areas of difference. For instance, Gemini is Mutable Air, and quite like Aquarius in many ways - but not at all stubborn. Taurus is Fixed Earth, and equally stubborn as Aquarius, but isn't nearly as mentally-focused.I often think that the elements and modes are by far the most reliable yardstick for describing the signs. Anything outside of their ambits are subjective best guesses, extensions, frills, and can be unreliable.
4 comments:
My mother was an Aquairan and did not fit the profile given to so many. She was quietly artistic, stubborn when she had to be and highly sociable (when allowed by her rigid Virgo husband - my father).
I like your take on it.
XO
WWW
And so says an Aquarian. "We're not what you think we are"...lol!
I've got Uranus in Leo in opposition to my Sun in Aquarius and natal Mercury so I would say that. Mum is a mutable, fixed Gemini and you're right she isn't as stubborn as I am though I prefer determined as I can be shifted if needs be.
Dad's a Sun Leo so what that says with my Uranus there, I don't know.
Happy Birthday, Twilight, whenever it is. Mine's 2 weeks today on the 3rd. 51 down and so many to go!
Rossa
WWW ~~~ Your mother sounds much like the Sun Aquarius people I've known - though not all were naturally sociable....I'm not, for one! So much depends on the rising sign (and Moon). ;-)
Rossa ~~~ Or maybe we should say "Guess what we are like! Neener neener...Had you fooled didn't we?" LOL!
Although Leo and Aquarius are opposite, and supposedly have opposite traits, their elements blend - Air and Fire and both are Fixed, so on the whole they can get along well, I've found.
Thanks, Rossa - same to you!
Mine is 27th - and I'm way ahead of you on the timeline, but hope there's a fair way to go still yet. ;-)
Post a Comment