No Walls - Heresy or Freedom of Thought?

An astrolger, years ago, name escapes me, once pointed out that "there are no walls in space". We can't argue with that, though I wouldn't argue against Donald Trump demanding one be built at some future point in time! Graham Greene once said, or wrote, "Heresy is another word for freedom of thought." I'm about to commit the heresy of freedom of thought - on one facet of astrology.

Traditional astrology does build theoretical walls in space - both types of astrology are guilty of this. Sidereal astrology, based on the constellations, widely used in India and the East; and tropical astrology, based on the seasons - the system with which we in the west are familiar. In astrologese these theoretical walls are known as 'cusps' - the divisions between the 12 zodiac signs, Aries to Pisces.

When comparing tropical and sidereal versions of a natal chart, I've found that often both can provide a reasonably accurate interpretation, yet there are around 23 degrees difference between the two zodiac systems.

What if, in both versions of the zodiac, the division into 12 signs, passed to us by ancient astrologers is just too detailed and precise to fit real-life, living breathing mortals in the 21st century? Astrologers tend to look on the system handed down to them in much the same way as Americans look on the Constitution : sacred. Perhaps, after the passing of centuries, both could benefit from some updating and adjustment? Ain't gonna happen, of course, in either case, but it's interesting to surmise.

All widely used astrological systems are based on 12 traditional sign divisions: Aries through Pisces, apart from Uranian astrology and Harmonics, both of which ignore signs completely and concentrate only on planets. I've found that there's proof enough that zodiac signs have value, but I do get the feeling that there is much more "wiggle room" between them than is, traditionally, assumed. Most astrologers, even my favourite astrologers, have declared that the cusps are definite borderlines; one is born on one side of these, or on t'other - no wiggle room allowed, no 'bleeding over' of characteristics, no blending.

I've always thought that astrology has to be based upon natural phenomena, but phenomena as yet not understood. People who look on astrology as a mathematical phenomenon, or in the realm of the spiritual or metaphysical, or those who adhere firmly to the system of the ancients, would not find my view tolerable, this I understand and respect. We don't know any answers about astrological methods for sure - we just don't! If some astrologers were to accept that much and remain a tad more open-minded, it would be helpful.

A "blending in" phase between each cusp would result in a more complex system for sure, but one which would follow the rules of nature more nearly. Nature doesn't move, abruptly, from one situation or stage to another, it does so gradually. Even in the case of what seem to us to be abrupt events: earthquakes, hurricanes and such, the causal factors have gradually built up over a period of time, sometimes centuries, sometimes days, but never instantly, as in on/off.

Using a zodiac of 12 signs, any blending-in phase couldn't account for the 23 degrees of difference between tropical and sidereal systems. While keeping in mind that any theoretical walls in space could have some slight degree of flexibility, I've often thought that natal positions of Mercury and Venus ought to be given more prominence in basic astrological interpretation, and not just labelled as "communication style ", and regarding "art and love".

Sun/Moon/ascendant positions are seen by many as the key trio. While not arguing about that trio's importance, I'd add Mercury and Venus. Mercury can never be more than the space of one sign from the Sun's position; Venus never more than the breadth of 2 signs. These two factors very often bring into a personality 'flavours' of signs adjacent to the Sun sign in a natal chart. It's possible that this might account for the fact that, sometimes, both sidereal and tropical astrology can seem to fit a personality - even discounting the ticklish question of cusps and blending-in periods.

I'm in a picky, prickly mood today, one of those moods when, though my belief that there is validity in some parts of astrology still holds, I do not believe everything the text books and teachers propose as being inarguable. Heresy? Dunno - but I don't "expect the Spanish Inquisition". :)

Three's a.....Triumvirate

Astrologer Robert Hand, in his book Horoscope Symbols wrote:

Mercury is often underplayed in astrological writing. In part this may be because it is not often an obvious source of difficulty to people. Also, I suspect, people find its symbolism less exciting than that of some other planets. Yet it is a symbol of immense importance. It is connected to the mind, especially the logical and reasoning capabilities, and to all forms of communication.

How we communicate is such a huge part of who we are, it colors the perception of those we meet, it's almost always the first thing others notice about us - it's instant.

I've long felt that Mercury, though such a major factor in our personalities, is overshadowed in popular astrology by natal Moon and ascendant. Nothing works without Mercury, it's the essential ingredient, on duty all the time, whether we're in company or sitting alone, reading, typing, listening, watching. I suspect that a person's Mercury placement often plays a stronger part in how they are perceived by others than their Sun, Moon or even their ascendant; I think astrologers would disagree with me on this!

Venus, though not as "all-purpose" as Mercury, also has a major part in the personality. Venus cannot be more than 48 degrees from the Sun in a natal chart, which means it can lie either in the same zodiac sign as the Sun, in one of the adjoining signs, or just one sign beyond adjoining signs. Sun, Mercury and Venus, the possible combinations of their placement in a natal chart was considered on a website now defunct, by a writer whose name remains, sadly, unknown to me. Some years ago I had copied part of an article from the website to my Word Pad because I found it of interest, and mentioned something I considered didn't get enough emphasis in astrology - the important triumvirate of Sun/Mercury/Venus. Here is part of the article, with illustrations added. If any stray reader knows the name of its author, do please let me know in a comment.

"The Sun is the life force of a horoscope, the conceptual furnace that reaches out and draws us into the warmth it projects. It is our purpose in life, supported by the more immediate need of the Moon. The Moon we know well, yet at the Sun we become.

But there are two planets in particular we look to in astrology that aid the Sun more intimately in many ways – Mercury and Venus. All together, the Sun, Mercury and Venus represent a crucially-important triad in the birth chart. In ancient Rome we would call such a triad a ‘triumvirate’ – a ruling council of three men. The first triumvirate ever included Gnaeus Pompey, a top general, Marcus Crassus, a wealthy citizen and Julius Caesar, an ambitious politician. Together, they ruled Rome until individual, personal ambitions emerged to create problems.

In astrology, Mercury and Venus can never be far from the Sun. It is an astronomical reality that Mercury can never stray more than one sign, either side, away from the same sign the Sun is in. Venus can (but rarely does) jump out of this same boundary to inch itself into even one sign beyond. But they are bound by this reality. Let’s think about what this means, astrologically, this tightness of relationship to each other and apply it to lives lived. As we go along, think about your own chart and how this synthesis applies to your own life.

When all three planets are aligned in the same sign, the same archetype is being pressed into consciousness through our ego and core energy, our mind and our social antennae. There is a unified approach to life, a path and purpose that seems sure and right, whether or not this matches up with reality. For instance, consider the sign Pisces. With all three of these bodies in Pisces, there would be a deep-seated focus on things that can help one transcend – intense creativity, for instance. There is no doubt this theme means something to a Pisces. This is because the Pisces Sun is buttressed by Mercury and Venus. All together, they support a defining structure.

Those who have the Sun, Mercury and Venus in the same sign seem to have a strength of purpose – a focus that doesn’t waver as easily as those who have the three bodies in more than one sign. Certainly, this is not a value judgement. Consider that strength of purpose can also easily turn into willful stubbornness and intractability. It is what one does, natural ability to stay focused that counts. Let’s look at an example.

To review, ‘harmony’ through the Sun, Mercury and Venus in the same sign simply means the same message, the same energy, is being pumped through the core of an individual. How one chooses to respond to this energy and message is what is at stake on an ongoing basis. When one acts with determination and focus, does he or she still retain the strength of will to change gears when necessary and see other possibilities? This is what will determine successful use of these energies.

Outside of harmony, there is discord.

Discord
We might consider the astrological imprint of the Sun and Mercury or Venus in one sign but the third planet in a second sign as an example of discord. For instance, Sun and Mercury in Aries but Venus in Pisces. The Sun and Mercury are symbolizing ‘me first’ kind of energies in this example. There is courage and a willingness to engage the world in a fiery kind of way. Venus, though, as the social antennae, splashes some water on this notion and will react and behave differently than the Sun and Mercury. Of course, only one human being is being discussed here in the long run, and that person needs to assimilate energies that are fundamentally different. Consider Caesar with only the support of one partner. In the case above, only the wealthy Crassus supports him without question but Pompey, the general, does not – at least not with additional work.

Of course, let us realize this can be done, this assimilation of energies that are different. People do it every day – millions who go about their business. Some people may or may not be conscious of the subtle and not-so-subtle energies that pull and prod until we make choices and define who we are in the process. We are calling it ‘discord’ to create an image in our minds of two energies that work together while the third, renegade energy has to negotiate with the others every time a decision needs to be made! In the same example, the ego (Sun) is feeling the swell of Aries pride and the mind (Mercury) races on ahead with it, completely ready to wade into a crowd of people and talk about anything. Meanwhile, the social antennae indicator (Venus) is putting on the brakes. "Well, maybe I’ll just float about in the corner and see if anyone notices me instead." Venus won’t win all the time. But the fact is, it’s a constant mini battle to understand oneself and ones motivations.

Three planets in three different signs I refer to as dissonance.

Dissonance
Again, this is simply a descriptive word to understand symbols that are fundamentally different, all calling out for different needs to be fulfilled. Instead of one voice acting as the lone renegade, we now have three voices all trying to run the show, with the Sun calling out for most of the attention. It is Caesar trying to lead (one’s Sun) without Crassus or Pompey working alongside– of course it can be done, but it demands adjustment. For the person with this sort of dissonance, the adjustment is a lifelong work-in-progress but should be increasingly easier with growing self-awareness.

To review, let us be clear that the idea of dissonance to describe three different themes of expression is merely a different path to potential success. Just as we learned harmony of thought and intent can be a mixed blessing, dissonance between the Sun, Mercury and Venus is no different. Value judgements must be left at the altar of personal choice.

The Last Say
The politics of ancient Rome was a tricky business. As Caesar's military successes aroused Pompey's jealousy, the death of Crassus on top of this pushed history’s first Triumvirate to an end. Pompey and Caesar then set against each other in a bloody civil war. The Sun, Mercury and Venus are a lot like the symbols of the ancient triumvirate in Rome, in many ways. But in our own internal ruling council, we have the last say. We get to determine our own fates, to avoid the chaos competing energies can bring. We have the free will to quash an inner civil war, to realize with grace that reaching the warm light of our Sun is the destination all energies must share.

While on the subject of Mercury and Venus - two other articles of interest, these by Michael R. Meyer: The Four Faces of Mercury and Venus, Morning Star, Evening Star. The articles discuss the cycles of Mercury and Venus in some detail.

Saturday & Sundries

At Free Will Astrology this week Rob Brezsny told Aquarian types that:

In 1938, a chef named Ruth Wakefield dreamed up a brilliant invention: chocolate chip cookies. She sold her recipe to the Nestlé company in return for one dollar and a lifetime supply of chocolate. Maybe she was happy with that arrangement, but I think she cheated herself........(etc.)

Ms Wakefield did the world a favour! In my opinion, though, choc chip cookies do not beat wonderful British Chocolate Digestives by McVitie. From the Wikipedia page on Digestive Biscuits in general - sc roll down:

Chocolate digestive biscuits also are available, coated on one side with milk, dark or white chocolate. Originally produced by McVitie's in 1925 in the UK as the Chocolate Homewheat Digestive....American travel writer Bill Bryson described the chocolate digestive as "a British masterpiece". The McVitie's chocolate digestive is the most popular biscuit in the UK to dunk into tea.

The Sartorialist website one day this week (a daily stop for me) inadvertently introduced me to another artist I'd not heard of: Ai Weiwei, when The Sartorialist's photographer and the artist decided to take photographs of one another at the same time.

Ai Weiwei, I discovered, once created a set of bronze sculptures representing the Chinese Zodiac
See Zodiac Heads
and The Meaning of Ai Weiwei's 12 Zodiac Heads

An interesting topic upon which to exercise imagination:

The Amazing Cloud Cities we Could Build on Venus by Adam Becker

Space scientists are pouring much time and effort into colonising Mars. But could we also live in the atmosphere of Venus? BBC Future investigates.

Snips:

It’s hot enough to melt lead, the acid rain will scorch the flesh from your bones – and it’s the perfect place to raise a family. Venus, not Mars, might be the off-world destination of choice for future space colonists..........

So how could we ever possibly hope to live there? The key is to avoid the surface. “The problem with Venus is that the surface is too far below the one-Earth-atmosphere [of air pressure] level,” says Geoffrey Landis, the Nasa scientist and science fiction writer who was among the first to propose the idea. “The atmosphere of Venus is the most Earth-like environment in the Solar System (other than the Earth).” Some 50 kilometres (30 miles) above the surface, Venus is surprisingly hospitable........

To live on Venus, then, just fill a balloon with nitrogen and oxygen, and live inside the balloon. A big enough balloon will have enough lifting power to support you and your supplies – and a really big balloon could do even more. “A one-kilometre diameter spherical [balloon] will lift 700,000 tons – two Empire State Buildings. A two-kilometre diameter [balloon] would lift six million tons,” says Landis. “The result would be an environment as spacious as a typical city.”.........

All of which brought to mind this ditty:

Hat-tip to Avedon's Sideshow (link in sidebar) for this -

Watching This Rare Color Film Of London In 1927 Makes You Feel Like You're There, by Emily Davis.

This wonderful short film was shot by early film pioneer Claude Friese-Greene in 1927, and is some of the first-ever color film footage of London.

Which, in turn, brought to mind that we've been watching a new TV series on NBC "Timeless" (mainly because it follows "The Voice", so we're already on TV rather than partaking of Netflix offerings).

We've seen 4 weekly episodes so far. The series is not awful, but it isn't great time travel fare either. The episodes need to be longer, dialogue needs more depth. To date the time travellers have tried: to stop a rogue time traveller from preventing the Hindenberg disaster; from preventing the assassination of Abe Lincoln, from something we hadn't quite worked out, and this week from preventing the Nazis using an atomic weapon on Belgium, and preventing Werner Von Braun from going to work in the USA. What the plot's characters are doing isn't travelling back to change stuff themselves, but to prevent a rogue traveller from changing stuff, and in the process causing numerous potentially catastrophic "butterfly effects".

As we told one another on Monday evening, "This theme, done this way, could get old quite quickly now!"

Day of Venus

It's All Fools' Day, but it's also Venus's day. Ancient Romans celebrated The Veneralia on this day, in tribute to Venus Verticordia ("Venus the changer of hearts") and Fortuna Virilis ("Manly" or "Virile Fortune").

It was the Romans who named the month Aprilis, possibly a reference to the Latin verb aperire, to open (the season when trees and flowers begin to open); or perhaps as April, being sacred to the goddess Venus, and her Veneralia being held on the first day, Aprilis was originally Aphrilis, from the name of Venus's equivalent Greek goddess, Aphrodite (Aphros).

The cult of Venus Verticordia established in 220 BC, during the last years of Rome's Punic Wars, was in response to advice from a Sibylline oracle. A series of prodigies was taken to signify divine displeasure at sexual offenses among Romans of every category and class, including several men and three Vestal Virgins. Tsk tsk!!

"A series of prodigies"...hmm, obviously not referring to a band of baby mathematicians or lyre players, nifty beyond their years. Collins English Dictionary clears that up:

prodigy
1. a person, esp a child, of unusual or marvellous talents
2. anything that is a cause of wonder and amazement

3. something monstrous or abnormal
4. an archaic word for omen.

Ceremonials during Veneralia entailed all women, both married and unmarried, visiting the men's baths. It was a day for women to seek divine support and aid in their love lives. Wearing myrtle wreaths, they would make a libation of poppy with milk and honey and drink the potion while praying that Venus would bring them harmony and peace. Incense was also offered to the goddess in hope of hiding any perceived physical imperfections from view while the women were in the baths.

In 114 BC Venus Verticordia was given her own temple. She was meant to persuade Romans of both sexes and every class, whether married or unmarried, to cherish the traditional sexual proprieties and morality known to please the gods and benefit the State. During the Veneralia, her cult image was taken from her temple to the men's baths, where it was undressed and washed in warm water by her female attendants, then garlanded with myrtle. Women and men asked Venus Verticordia for her help in love, sex, betrothal and marriage.

See also: Wikipedia

Down the Rabbit-hole with Saturn & Myth

Down the internet rabbit hole, keeping out of the sun and heat, I came across, via an astrology forum, a long video narrated and compiled by David Talbott:
Symbols of an Alien Sky. The video is a hour and 20 minutes long, so not for the faint-hearted. At the link provided, rather than directing straight to YouTube, there's more information and some illustrations. There are, apparently, two further video episodes on the topic, I haven't yet investigated those.

Just watching a few minutes of the video gives some idea of its content. I watched it in full, was as intrigued as I was many, many years ago, when I read Erich von Däniken's first book Chariots of the Gods. With his subsequent books my fascination turned to cynicism though, perhaps the same might happen in this case. Sometimes, when an imaginative author finds a fascinating theme, which might in fact have some ghostlike validity, the author tends to keep flogging the horse with follow-ups until it's....well - dead.

For anyone unable to watch the video, there are articles available on the "Saturn Myth" at its heart - basically it proposes that long, long ago Saturn was Earth's sun, and the configuration of planets was different from the orbits we know today. Three examples of such articles: HERE, HERE, and HERE. Numerous others appear on line, both supporting and rubbishing the theory.

The video mentioned above concentrates on how ancient petroglyphs in many countries of the world can be seen to match proposals put forward, and how world myths might have grown up out of planetary events far back in time, beyond current human knowledge.

David Talbott's ideas, which closely follow theories of Immanuel Velikovsky propose that Saturn, Mars and Earth were once in the far, far distant past in alignment, and outside of the current Sun's heliosphere, probably for millions of years with Earth inside Saturn's plasma sheath. When the Saturnian system entered the Sun's Heliosphere, Saturn began flaring, Venus was ejected from Saturn and the ring system was born and the beginning of the breakup, and much of Human mythology began. Things ripped apart, planets found new orbits by exchanging electrical discharges until it settled into the system of planetary orbits we know today. Our current understandings of physics and cosmology are, apparently not yet advanced enough to fully understand these things. Proposals involve the addition of electrical factors ("The Electric Universe".) The planets, it is thought, were held in alignment electro-statically countering effects of gravity. The breakup left the system electrically "dead", gravity took over as primary system force.

Just as I'd wished to believe what Erich von Däniken proposed about early space travel and visits from other worlds, I'd love to believe what David Talbott and others propose about the origin of certain world mythologies, religions and the formation of our current planetary configuration. I've often pondered about the origin of myths. Was there more to it than, in the case of our best-known Greek variety of myth, sages and philosophers getting together to concoct a set of fictional stories of gods and goddesses for the delectation of listeners and readers, with maybe just a hint of moral or philosophical truth embedded? Were those sages actually carrying on, in different form, more acceptable, accessible and likely to survive as religion or myth, tales of planetary change and catastrophe handed down from...from whom though? Perhaps the origin of such knowledge was lost, along with much else, in the burning of the Ancient Library of Alexandria, but some special knowledge, known to a select few, had been passed on by word of mouth?

Arty Farty Friday ~ Venus With Her Clothes On

Before we move on from astrological Venus-ruled Taurus to Mercury-ruled Gemini, I fancied a look at some depictions of mythical Venus. Most people are very familiar with the armless Venus de Milo sculpture, and Botticelli's famous painting (right) of her "Birth", naked of course. In most famous paintings she's depicted "in the raw", the artists were probably celebrating the beauty of the classic female form. The same classic female form these days, in the USA, would amazingly be categorised as
"Plus-size". A clothes-horse, as required by today's fashion houses, has to be just one or two degrees away from anorexic.

I decided to try to find some depictions of Venus clothed.

By the by, images of Venus sometimes show her holding a golden apple in one hand. Venus won the golden apple from Paris, the story is HERE.

Please click on an image to see a larger version.

Venus et Un Marin - Venus and a Sailor by Salvador Dali (1925) (homage to Salvat-Papasseit, Catalan poet). There are three Dali paintings with this title - I like this one the best, others can be seen by typing the title into Google Image search box.

Venus and Sailor (Homage to Salvat-Papasseit), 1925, is dedicated to the poet who died in 1924.
This is the Papasseit who, in his first book, made perfectly clear the fascination he felt for Marinetti, the Italian futurists and, even more so, for Apollinaire (two other poets). (See HERE.)
Marin - sailor - is, perhaps, a reference to Marinetti; but why Apollo would translate to Venus I cannot fathom. But then...Dali was a law unto himself!



La Primavera by Sandro Botticelli

La Primavera (or the Allegory of Spring) is full of allegorical meanings, whose interpretation is difficult and still uncertain. Among the many theories proposed over the last decades, the one that seems to be the most corroborated is the interpretation of the painting as the realm of Venus, sung by the ancient poets and by Poliziano (famous scholar at the court of the Medici). On the right Zephyrus (the blue faced young man) chases Flora and fecundates her with a breath. Flora turns into Spring, the elegant woman scattering her flowers over the world. Venus, in the middle, represents the “Humanitas” (the benevolence), which protects men. On the left the three Graces dance and Mercury dissipates the clouds. (See HERE)



Schifanoia Triumph of Venus

The Triumph of Venus (1467-70) is also April from the Hall of the Months, by Francesco del Cossa, and is in the Palazzo Schifanoia, Ferrara, Explanation HERE



Venus and Anchises by Sir William Blake Richmond (1842 - 1921)

The meeting at night, of Venus and her earthly lover, the Trojan shepherd Anchises, on Mount Ida. Venus, clothed in glowing pink and gold walks towards Anchises, who awaits her holding a lyre. Anchises, clad in a red shirt, appears to cower in the shadow of a tree. The usual penalty for mortals such as he for looking at a god or goddess was to be turned into stone.

The picture is not a simple illustration of a mythical event, but demonstrates the transforming power of love. Night has turned into day. In the bottom right of the picture there are the dead leaves of autumn, but wherever Venus walks she becomes surrounded by spring flowers and apple blossom. She is accompanied by lions and a flight of doves which disperse a group of sparrows. Although the event depicted is rooted in ancient Greek mythology, Richmond chooses to show the dramatic awakening of a northern landscape in an English spring. The offspring of the union between Venus and Anchises was Aeneas, the legendary ancestor of the Romans.
(See HERE)



Astarte Syriaca, originally entitled Venus Astarte (1875-7), by Dante Gabriel Rossetti.

Rossetti composed the painting on a six- foot canvas, so that it was long enough for a full-length portrait. The model was Jane Morris, muse of several of the Pre-Raphaelites, and wife of William Morris (my post on Wm. Morris is here).

The painting drew criticism when it was displayed, due to its erotic content. Victorian audiences were shocked by its overt sensuality. Venus' hands are positioned to draw attention to her fertility (use your imagination!), and are identical to the hand position of Botticelli's Venus. Furthermore, as Rossetti's poem (see link) indicates, her girdle also highlights her voluptuousness ("her twofold girdle clasps the infinite boon of bliss whereof the heaven and earth commune"). The girdle also functions in much the same way as the hair of Venus in Botticelli's version, but is a bit more subtle. (See HERE)
See also here.



The Mirror of Venus by Sir Edward Burne-Jones.

"The scene is purely imaginary, and shows Venus and her maidens gazing at their reflections in a pool of water. The landscape is arid and rocky; these strangely lunar landscapes were to become a recurring feature of his art, widely imitated by his followers. The mood and the colour are Pre-Raphaelite, but the conscious sweetness and elegance of the figures recall the Italian Renaissance, and, in particular, Botticelli, an artist greatly admired by Burne-Jones, and later to become a cult among fashionable aesthetes. The conception is purely aesthetic — a ring of beautiful girls in lovely draperies, with a minimum of narrative of historical content. The draperies are pseudo-classical, and the title is Venus, but the picture could equally have been given a vague allegorical title. Through the faces of the girls and their wistful expressions Burne-Jones conveys that feeling of intense sadness and nostalgia for the past that pervades so many late Pre-Raphaelite pictures"
(See HERE)


Laus Veneris by Sir Edward Burne-Jones.

Swinburne's poem Laus Veneris and Edward Burne-Jones's subsequent painting of the same title were created within 4 years of each other, the poem in 1866 and the painting between 1873 and 1878.

Swinburne's Laus Veneris = "the praise of Venus or love," is based on the theme of Tannhauser. In the legend, the young knight Tannhauser falls in love with Venus and lives with her in her subterranean home until he becomes filled with remorse. He escapes her snares and travels to Rome to ask Pope Urban if he could be absolved of his sins.
More HERE


I like this modern depiction of Venus:

Venus in silver on sale HERE

Ruling Principles

Why does planet Venus rule zodiac sign Taurus - and for that matter why does it rule Libra also? I asked myself this question, have asked similar ones many times before, worrying that the allocation of ancient gods to zodiac signs might have originally been a quite arbitrary exercise :-

Ancient astrologer to his apprentice: "Verily verily... The Sun must be ruler of the times when he's at his strongest, (Leo)...our other strong light, Moon must stay by his side(Cancer). So...what've we got left?
Apprentice: Erm...Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, sir.

Ancient astrologer: Oh, let's put 'em in order of their daily motion as we see it, two signs each, outward from Sun and Moon. Fastest mover Mercury must have governorship of signs nearest Sun's and Moon's, so he rules Gemini and Virgo. Next fastest mover, Venus must rule Taurus and Libra. Mars will govern Aries and Scorpio. Slowing down now....Jupiter will rule Sagittarius and Pisces. Now for the coldest and darkest months of the year, Saturn's slow motion leaves it to govern what remains: Aquarius and Capricorn. That'll all fit rather well!"

Ancient astrologers, who were also astronomers in those days, largely ignored an even more ancient allocation of certain gods to a zodiac circle of 12 moths, one month apiece.

There's more erudite and detailed information at Skyscript's article by Deborah Houlding, The Philosophy of Sign Rulership.

The best online article on this topic, best by far in my opinion, is from the late 1990s by Ken Gillman: Twelve Gods and Seven Planets. It's a long, but very good read.

SNIP

THE ALLOCATION of the Signs to the planets appears to have been an exercise in planetary symmetry, without regard for the corresponding natures of the planets or the Signs.

Readers may respond by saying: "OK, so perhaps the initial allocation of planet to Sign did not reflect life experience, but astrologers have been using the scheme for 2,000-years or so, and in the process have made it work."

Have they? Does this rulership scheme really work? Sign rulerships are an essential part of Horary astrology, for instance. Is this branch of astrology as effective as its practitioners claim? We hear of their successes, many of which are often due to planets in the Horary chart being close to angles or to the Moon's next aspects and so not requiring use of the ring-a-rosy rulership system of querent, dispositor, etc. But what of the many failures?

Nearly fifty years ago, a Mr. Ionides, the author of "One Day Telleth Another" (I don't have the author's first name or the book's publisher), suggested the 12-fold division of the ecliptic "was not natural at all, but had been imposed upon Nature by man's belief in them and have so acquired a certain validity." Discussing this, Charles E. O. Carter, an astrologer for whom I continue to have the utmost respect, commented:

In other words, let man believe a thing long enough and strongly enough and Nature, so to speak, accepts it from him. Thought, being essentially and always positive, can work upon the passive anima mundi and mould this to its will.

 If this notion has any basis in fact, then its practical (as well as theoretical) importance would be considerable. We should certainly, in that case, do well to foster in ourselves the highest possible conceptions of the planets....

We should have to distinguish, in the case of such a planet as Neptune, a natural quality and an impressed quality. The former might cover such Neptunian tendencies as poetic inspiration, interest in the occult, and the propensity to states of confusion and involvement, confinement and retirement, none of which appears to have any connection with the mythological Neptune, while the latter would include all relationships with the sea, which would be invested with validity because astrologers, learning that the planet was to be called Neptune, immediately combined to think of it in terms of that god.

The proof would be, what did Neptune Signify in the horoscopes of those who lived before it was discovered? Did only the 'natural' meaning appear, or did what I call the 'impressed' Significance also manifest itself? Because, according to the hypothesis I have, very tentatively, put forward, the latter Significance could not be there.

I know that Neptune was in transit upon King James's ascendant at the time of the Gunpowder Plot, exhibiting the 'treachery aspect' of Neptune, which is not, I think, at all mythological.

Uranus does not convey any distinct mythological conception to the average man, and perhaps that has allowed us to preserve in more or less pure form its natural qualities. But Pluto does most certainly mean something even to those whose studies in mythology have been strictly limited and it is true that most of us are, so to speak, hard at work trying to make him into a planet of death and darkness.

If man's belief makes something so, then surely it will be the belief of the majority of humankind that does. Believers in astrology have been relatively few since the days when a much larger proportion of the world's population believed, and had done so for hundreds of years, in the existence and natures of the Twelve Gods.

The proposal mentioned in that snip, made by C.E.O. Carter, still comes up from time to time in articles attempting to explain why astrology works. I've never quite been able to accept the theory myself, but thinking on it now, I'm wondering if it is actually a form of two-way brainwashing. We are told something is so. We test it, find that sometimes it is so. We start to believe it. We tell others about it. As word spreads, sometimes picking up all kinds of moss and fluff in the process, are we in the process actually forcing certain outcomes through sheer belief? I'm still not convinced that's possible to do, not with regard to astrology's basic principles anyway - perhaps it would work in regard to some of the additional bells and whistles added to the astrological basics at different stages by various schools of thought.

Speaking of other schools of thought relating to zodiac signs and planetary rulership, some believe there are links to Kabballah/Jewish mysticism, and/or to Biblical stories such as that about the 12 sons of Jacob. Indian astrologers have different methods and definitions of signs and rulers, coinciding somewhat, only broadly, with Western astrology. So there are really no hard and fast rules. If it works for you, it works, I guess.

My own miniscule of thought proposes that astrology isn't really about planets themselves at all, they serve only as markers on various sized waves of time/space/atmospheric changes which roll around the universe at different rates. Our zodiac signs are like months on a circular calendar or figures on the face of a watch, helping us to keep track of our human time-lines which will interact with these universal, maybe even inter-universal, rolling waves. At the moment we are born and take our first breath of the atmospheric wave then in session, our personal blueprint begins to form, eventually taking in considerations of distance from, and/or angles to, the rest of the rolling universal waves. There ya go - all sorted!

Three Important Pieces (of an astrological portrait)

Sun, Mercury and Venus, their relative positions within a natal chart, I've rattled on about this more than once in the past, but not recently. I've often thought that enough attention isn't given to the "triumvirate" of Sun/Mercury/Venus. While perhaps not as important as that other astro trio Sun/Moon/Ascendant, there's a certain significance in the way that secondary group is configured. A limited, but varied, number of positions exist in which these planets can appear in a natal chart.

Because the orbits of Mercury and Venus lie within Earth's orbit, Mercury can never be more than 28 zodiacal degrees from the Sun (either in the same sign as the Sun or one sign before or after it); Venus can never be more than 48 degrees from Sun (in the same sign, or up to two signs before/after).

In my own chart, for instance, Sun is in Aquarius, Mercury is in Capricorn and Venus is in Sagittarius. In my husband's Sun is Aries, Mercury Pisces, Venus in Taurus. Some of my husband's immediate family have Sun, Mercury and Venus all in the same sign. As I see it, quite a large part of anyone's personality is defined by this mix of up to 3 consecutive zodiac signs - one quarter of the zodiac. This must produce definable groups. One could look on each group's similarities as a melody being played, while Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn play solo improvisations. Uranus, Neptune and Pluto retain the bass beat, aka a generational flavour. The melody, though, is what's most memorable for listeners and the player, therefore very important.

Pondering this, and using my own chart as example, would Aquarius Sun with Mercury and Venus both in Aquarius come over as more truly Aquarian than I do? I think so, somewhat - even if ascendant were in a conflicting sign. Would a Sun Aquarian with both Mercury and Venus in Capricorn be less restless, prone to travel than me? Probably. How about an Aquarius Sun with Mercury and Venus in Pisces? Different animal altogether I'd say; more overtly mystic, dreamy, less organised.

When searching for information in years past I found a good article on this very topic on a website now long defunct. The website was lifepathastrology.com. I failed to keep a note of the author's name for which I apologise profusely. The article follows:

"The Sun is the life force of a horoscope, the conceptual furnace that reaches out and draws us into the warmth it projects. It is our purpose in life, supported by the more immediate need of the Moon. The Moon we know well, yet at the Sun we become. But there are two planets in particular we look to in astrology that aid the Sun more intimately in many ways – Mercury and Venus. All together, the Sun, Mercury and Venus represent a crucially-important triad in the birth chart. In ancient Rome we would call such a triad a ‘triumvirate’ – a ruling council of three men. The first triumvirate ever included Pompey, a top general, Crassus, a wealthy citizen and Julius Caesar, ambitious politician. Together, they ruled Rome until individual, personal ambitions emerged to create problems.

In astrology, Mercury and Venus can never be far from the Sun. It is an astronomical reality that Mercury can never stray more than one sign, either side, away from the same sign the Sun is in. Venus can (but rarely does) jump out of this same boundary to inch itself into even one sign beyond. But they are bound by this reality. Let’s think about what this means, astrologically, this tightness of relationship to each other and apply it to lives lived. As we go along, think about your own chart and how this synthesis applies to your own life.

When all three planets are aligned in the same sign, the same archetype is being pressed into consciousness through our ego and core energy, our mind and our social antennae. There is a unified approach to life, a path and purpose that seems sure and right, whether or not this matches up with reality. For instance, consider the sign Pisces. With all three of these bodies in Pisces, there would be a deep-seated focus on things that can help one transcend – intense creativity, for instance. There is no doubt this theme means something to a Pisces. This is because the Pisces Sun is buttressed by Mercury and Venus. All together, they support a defining structure.

Those who have the Sun, Mercury and Venus in the same sign seem to have a strength of purpose – a focus that doesn’t waver as easily as those who have the three bodies in more than one sign. Certainly, this is not a value judgement. Consider that strength of purpose can also easily turn into willful stubbornness and intractability. It is what one does actual ability to stay focused that counts. Let’s look at an example.

To review, ‘harmony’ through the Sun, Mercury and Venus in the same sign simply means the same message, the same energy, is being pumped through the core of an individual. How one chooses to respond to this energy and message is what is at stake on an ongoing basis. When one acts with determination and focus, does he or she still retain the strength of will to change gears when necessary and see other possibilities? This is what will determine successful use of these energies.

Discord
Outside of harmony, there is discord. We might consider the astrological imprint of the Sun and Mercury or Venus in one sign but the third planet in a second sign as an example of discord. For instance, Sun and Mercury in Aries but Venus in Pisces. The Sun and Mercury are symbolizing ‘me first’ kind of energies in this example. There is courage and a willingness to engage the world in a fiery kind of way. Venus, though, as the social antennae, splashes some water on this notion and will react and behave differently than the Sun and Mercury. Of course, only one human being is being discussed here in the long run, and that person needs to assimilate energies that are fundamentally different. Consider Caesar with only the support of one partner. In the case above, only the wealthy Crassus supports him without question but Pompey, the general, does not – at least not with additional work.

Of course, let us realize this can be done, this assimilation of energies that are different. People do it every day – millions who go about their business. Some people may or may not be conscious of the subtle and not-so-subtle energies that pull and prod until we make choices and define who we are in the process. We are calling it ‘discord’ to create an image in our minds of two energies that work together while the third, renegade energy has to negotiate with the others every time a decision needs to be made! In the same example, the ego (Sun) is feeling the swell of Aries pride and the mind (Mercury) races on ahead with it, completely ready to wade into a crowd of people and talk about anything. Meanwhile, the social antennae indicator (Venus) is putting on the brakes. "Well, maybe I’ll just float about in the corner and see if anyone notices me instead." Venus won’t win all the time. But the fact is, it’s a constant mini battle to understand oneself and ones motivations.

Dissonance
(This applies to my own configuration, as above)
Three planets in three different signs I refer to as dissonance. Again, this is simply a descriptive word to understand symbols that are fundamentally different, all calling out for different needs to be fulfilled. Instead of one voice acting as the lone renegade, we now have three voices all trying to run the show, with the Sun calling out for most of the attention. It is Caesar trying to lead (one’s Sun) without Crassus or Pompey working alongside– of course it can be done, but it demands adjustment. For the person with this sort of dissonance, the adjustment is a lifelong work-in-progress but should be increasingly easier with growing self-awareness.
To review, let us be clear that the idea of dissonance to describe three different themes of expression is merely a different path to potential success. Just as we learned harmony of thought and intent can be a mixed blessing, dissonance between the Sun, Mercury and Venus is no different. Value judgements must be left at the altar of personal choice.

The Last Say
The politics of ancient Rome was a tricky business. As Caesar's military successes aroused Pompey's jealousy, the death of Crassus on top of this pushed history’s first Triumvirate to an end. Pompey and Caesar then set against each other in a bloody civil war.
The Sun, Mercury and Venus are a lot like the symbols of the ancient triumvirate in Rome, in many ways. But in our own internal ruling council, we have the last say. We get to determine our own fates, to avoid the chaos competing energies can bring. We have the free will to quash an inner civil war, to realize with grace that reaching the warm light of our Sun is the destination all energies must share."

While on the subject of Mercury and Venus, here are two more articles of interest, these by Michael R. Meyer: "The Four Faces of Mercury" and "Venus, Morning Star, Evening Star" by Michael R. Meyer. The articles discuss the cycles of Mercury and Venus in some detail.

VENUS PEOPLE

A little astrology as a change from politics today. The Sun will remain in Venus-ruled Libra for a few more days, Venus rules art and this is Arty-Farty Friday... here's an edited version of an old post of mine:

 Venus at Cardiff Castle, Wales, with symbols of Libra

  & Taurus

People with Libra or Taurus strongly placed in their natal charts could be termed Venus people. 20th century astrologer, Carl Payne Tobey, compared such Venus people in his "Astrology Primer for the Millions". His assessments help us to see that although there are big differences between the two signs there are, sometimes, at their core, subtle similarities flowing from their traditional ruler. His words refer not only to those with Sun in Taurus or Libra, but anyone with natal Moon or several planets there, or with one of those signs on the ascendant. In my opinion, even if only Venus and/or Mercury are in Taurus or Libra in a natal chart, there will be quite a noticeable slice of the relevant sign contained in the personality. Also, if the ruler of one's Sun lies in one of these signs, some of Mr. Tobey's remarks will be likely to apply.

One thing I did find puzzling was that Mr Tobey considers that Libra lacks initiative, it's mentioned in various places in this piece. Most (or all) sources tell us that the cardinal signs (Libra is one of the four) are the initiators. I kind of understand what he's saying, but there might have been a better way to express it.

Below are some details from Carl Payne Tobey's book, with a few remarks from me.

Taurus and Libra are usually friendly and perhaps lethargic signs. They are strongly attracted to the opposite sex but are not particularly aggressive about it. They are more inclined to let things come to them. They prefer to attract people to themselves than run after them. Yet here we have some very romantic people. They react more than they initiate. (Note from me - that's odd, Libra being Cardinal sign). .......

These are not what we could call the nervous types, particularly Taurus is not. In fact it can be stoic. Neither sign is too easily aroused. They are more inclined to take things in their stride........they are much more calm than other signs. They appear more easily satisfied.

For all of this, and for all of these similarities, they are opposites in many respects.

Taurus is more material. It comes into the world to think of and deal with material things, but under certain conditions is capable of great transformations. It likes the land and likes it in big quantities.........Great wealth is often connected with this sign. These people often build up great power of one kind or another. They enjoy possessing great power, even if they never use it. Hitler was a Taurean.......we had a breakthrough of a Taurean into the metaphysical in Shakespeare. In the entertainment world Bing Crosby. (Note from me - the author is of a different era, so most of his examples are not very useful in today's world - I've omitted those which now seem obscure).

Taurean women, for the most part are inclined to be settled. They can get pretty attached to their homes and families. They can be steadying influences upon their husbands. They will enjoy entertaining at home, but they like good homes in which to entertain. (Note from me: we have to forgive Mr Tobey for his somewhat sexist outlook, he lived in a different era from ours).

Libra isn't so attached to material things above what they may need for comfort. They like nice things and appreciate quality. They would prefer to do their entertaining in a small way, with a select group of friends. They are less impressed by bigness. They don't concentrate on one thing the way a Taurean will. There is stubbornness in Taurus, but this is rare in Libra. When enthused, Taurus has a one-track mind, one object upon which it concentrates......Libra is not like that. It weighs both sides of any subject. It knows when something is off balance.

Except when the ruling planet, Venus, is in Scorpio, Libra can be a very just sign. It doesn't want to hurt anybody. There is a considerable difference in that Taurus believes in its own power even though it is a cautious sign, while Libra lacks self-confidence. You have to convince Libra how good it is. Try to tell Libra how good it is and it will appreciate it but probably won't believe it. Nevertheless the sign will feel good because you said so.

Too few Libra people develop their talents properly because of the lack of self-confidence. There is often good musical or artistic ability which is not developed. The sign likes all flattery even if it doesn't believe it.........there is an ability to understand abstract design, with the result that Libra can become a masterful mathematician, if the fear of mathematics as a subject is overcome.

It is apt to flatter Libra to be desired sexually, and the sign can be very affectionate.

While Taurus can be sluggish until it gets started or gets up its momentum, Libra is inclined to be lazy. The women enjoy sweets. (Note from me: I bet the men do too!) And if contentedly married they can become compulsive eaters. Then weight becomes a problem. Doctors investigating the subject find more Libra women afflicted with obesity than any other sign. They need a new interest of some kind to make them forget food and sweets. (Note from me:Oh, Mr Tobey - do I detect male chauvinism?)


With Libra the kidneys can be a weak spot, while with Taurus it is the throat.

Libra doesn't usually have the staying power of Taurus. ........Neither of these signs can ordinarily be called impulsive. They don't usually take the initiative (Note from me: even though Libra is a Cardinal sign?)......Yet many of the greatest military men have been born under these signs. They are not warriors. They do not want to fight, but if somebody is going to fight, they'll be likely to withdraw until they develop or assemble sufficient strength to win. U.S. Grant was a Taurean. (From me: Eisenhower was a Libran).

It is more difficult for Taurus to break away from the hereditary factor than for Libra to do so. There is basic family loyalty in Taurus, but if Libra doesn't like its relatives, it will look elsewhere for friends to take the place of relatives. It may show more interest in strangers than Taurus.....................

Neither of these signs can be considered as aggressive, nor can we call them ambitious signs. The Taureans who are ready to push themselves almost invariably have planets in Aries also (like Hitler), while Librans who will push themselves seem to have planets in Scorpio (Note from me: think Dennis Kucinich). Otherwise that push isn't there. Vitality and ambition are lacking.

These are not ordinarily to be considered signs of self-interest. They will usually step aside for others. It isn't in their nature to step on other people's toes. If they don't like a person, they will stay away from that person. They won't annoy him. When they can have harmonious associations they will be very cooperative. They are slow to anger, but don't push them too far. Particularly Taurus can be extremely violent if pushed too far.

When we come to the Mars-ruled combination of Aries and Scorpio you will see a marked difference in basic character structure. (From me: that'll be for another time!)

Venus photograph from Wikipedia.

VENUS - in general

With Venus at the forefront of astrological chat this week, here's what astrologer Ingrid Lind had to say about the planet's role in astrology and in the natal chart generally. The quote is from her little book Astrology and Commonsense (1962), from which I quoted extracts for each zodiac sign last year.

VENUS
Governs adolescence. Rules or has affinity with the signs Taurus and Libra. Keywords: harmony, unison, relatedness.

There is no doubt that all aspects to Venus in the chart indicate the ability or otherwise for forming relationships. Venus always seems to me to be very vulnerable to all aspect contact. Contact with Uranus can sway her to the unusual or perverse, with Mars to passion, with Jupiter to prodigality. Restricted by Saturn she functions coldly; friendships are made with difficulty or end in sorrow.

I realise that a planetary principle has no sex and applies to man or woman. Nevertheless I am inclined to visualise Venus as a sensitive and artistic woman. She takes colour from the sign she is in to a pronounced extent; in Pisces, for instance, tender to the point of folly, in Capricorn calculating her value. She is so to say the love-nature of the native and by means of the chart this can be isolated and studied apart from the rest of the chart.

There is also the connexion between Venus and money matters and it is useful to study Venus in a chart in relation to the native's attitude to money or possessions.

Hmm - does this work for me and mine? I have Venus in Sagittarius. Husband has Venus in Taurus. I can't say I'm particularly Sagittarian in my "love-nature" - maybe I've gone "over-the-top" at times, unwise over-enthusiasm for a person or project isn't unknown to me, but it's not exactly the norm. Sagittarius connects to travel, and I do love, love, love to travel! There's a trine from Venus to Saturn and Moon in Aries in my chart, as well as a square to Neptune in Virgo. Both aspects could serve to rein in potential excesses, I guess.

As for husband, his natal Venus is at home in Taurus, he's in love with (as well as me, I hope) art and music, dotty about jazz in particular. His Taurean love-nature could be classed as classic, I guess....except that Venus is conjunct Uranus (my Sun's ruling sign). Not classic at all - jazzy in fact! Interesting!

THE VENUS-RULED SIGNS ~ Libra & Taurus

Libra and Taurus, the "Venus people", were compared by 20th century astrologer, Carl Payne Tobey in his Astrology Primer for the Millions (1965). His assessments of zodiac signs with the same planetary ruler help us see that, although there are big differences between the two signs, there is some similarity at their core, flowing from their common traditional ruler.

We should bear in mind that Mr Tobey's words refer not only to those with Sun in Taurus or Libra, but anyone with natal Moon or several planets in those signs, or with Taurus or Libra rising. If the ruler of one's Sun lies in one of these signs, some of Mr. Tobey's remarks will be quite likely to apply.

One thing I find puzzling is that Mr Tobey considers Libra to be lacking in initiative, as mentioned in various places in this piece. Astrological sources always indicate that the cardinal signs, of which Libra is one, are the initiators. I kind of understand what he's getting at, but there might have been a better way to express it.

So, here are some details from Carl Payne Tobey's book, with a few remarks from me, in red.

Taurus and Libra are usually friendly and perhaps lethargic signs. They are strongly attracted to the opposite sex but are not particularly aggressive about it. They are more inclined to let things come to them. They prefer to attract people to themselves than run after them. Yet here we have some very romantic people. They react more than they initiate (note from me - that's odd, Libra being Cardinal sign). .......

These are not what we could call the nervous types, particularly Taurus is not. In fact it can be stoic. Neither sign is too easily aroused. They are more inclined to take things in their stride........they are much more calm than other signs. They appear more easily satisfied.

For all of this, and for all of these similarities, they are opposites in many respects.

Taurus is more material. It comes into the world to think of and deal with material things, but under certain conditions is capable of great transformations. It likes the land and likes it in big quantities.........Great wealth is often connected with this sign. These people often build up great power of one kind or another. They enjoy possessing great power, even if they never use it. Hitler was a Taurean.......we had a breakthrough of a Taurean into the metaphysical in Shakespeare. In the entertainment world Bing Crosby (note from me - the author is of a different era, so most of his examples are not very useful in today's world - I've omitted those which now seem obscure).

Taurean women, for the most part are inclined to be settled. They can get pretty attached to their homes and families. They can be steadying influences upon their husbands. They will enjoy entertaining at home, but they like good homes in which to entertain. (We have to forgive Mr Tobey for his somewhat sexist outlook, he lived in a different era from us).

Libra isn't so attached to material things above what they may need for comfort. They like nice things and appreciate quality. They would prefer to do their entertaining in a small way, with a select group of friends. They are less impressed by bigness. They don't concentrate on one thing the way a Taurean will. There is stubbornness in Taurus, but this is rare in Libra. When enthused, Taurus has a one-track mind, one object upon which it concentrates......Libra is not like that. It weighs both sides of any subject. It knows when something is off balance.


Except when the ruling planet, Venus, is in Scorpio, Libra can be a very just sign. It doesn't want to hurt anybody. There is a considerable difference in that Taurus believes in its own power even though it is a cautious sign, while Libra lacks self-confidence. You have to convince Libra how good it is. Try to tell Libra how good it is and it will appreciate it but probably won't believe it. Nevertheless the sign will feel good because you said so.

Too few Libra people develop their talents properly because of the lack of self-confidence. There is often good musical or artisitic ability which is not developed. The sign likes all flattery even if it doesn't believe it.........there is an ability to understand abstract design, with the result that Libra can become a masterful mathematician, if the fear of mathematics as a subject is overcome.

It is apt to flatter Libra to be desired sexually, and the sign can be very affectionate.

While Taurus can be sluggish until it gets started or gets up its momentum, Libra is inclined to be lazy. The women enjoy sweets (note from me - I bet the men do too!) and if contentedly married they can become compulsive eaters. Then weight becomes a problem. Doctors investigating the subject find more Libra women afflicted with obesity than any other sign. They need a new interest of some kind to make them forget food and sweets (Oh, Mr Tobey - do I detect male chauvinism?).

With Libra the kidneys can be a weak spot, while with Taurus it is the throat.

Libra doesn't usually have the staying power of Taurus. ........Neither of these signs can ordinarily be called impulsive. They don't usually take the initiative (- even though Libra is a Cardinal sign?)......Yet many of the greatest military men have been born under these signs. They are not warriors. They do not want to fight, but if somebody is going to fight, they'll be likely to withdraw until they develop or assemble sufficient strength to win. U.S. Grant was a Taurean. (From me: Eisenhower was a Libran).

It is more difficult for Taurus to break away from the hereditary factor than for Libra to do so. There is basic family loyaly in Taurus, but if Libra doesn't like its relatives, it will look elsewhere for friends to take the place of relatives. It may show more interest in strangers than Taurus.....................

Neither of these signs can be considered as aggressive, nor can we call them ambitious signs. The Taureans who are ready to push themselves almost invariably have planets in Aries also (like Hitler), while Librans who will push themselves seem to have planets in Scorpio. Otherwise that push isn't there. Vitality and ambition are lacking.

These are not ordinarily to be considered signs of self-interest. They will usually step aside for others. It isn't in their nature to step on other people's toes. If they don't like a person, they will stay away from that person. They won't annoy him. When they can have harmonious associations they will be very cooperative. They are slow to anger, but don't push them too far. Particularly Taurus can be extremely violent if pushed too far.