Michael Flatley

[Guest guest]

At 01:27 PM 1/13/09 +0200, Sari wrote:

>[Therese wrote:]

>The question was whether Valens' description of Gemini (Fagan-Bradley) might

>fit Michael Flatley. Here (in part) is a quote [on Gemini] from Valens:

>

> " Those so born, then, become fond of discourse, those who work with letters

>and education, poetic, lovers of music, teachers of the use of the voice,

>capable in matters of household management, those who receive trust. They

>also become interpreters, those with an aptitude for commerce, critics of

>good and bad, prudent, curious, initiates in occult matters. " (The

>Anthology, Book 1, Project Hindsight, 1993, p. 11)

>

>[sari wrote:] What Valens means by " those born " is the rising sign...

------------------------

 

[Therese:] This isn't clearly stated in the Project Hindsight translation

of Valens. On Aries, Valens says:

 

" Those who are born in this zoidion in accordance with the rulership

relation, then will be bright..(etc.)

 

Then Rob Hand has this note:

 

" This seems to mean that those who are born when the zoidion **ruler** is

present in the zoidion, or perhaps also when it aspects it. Does this mean

that this is the only time the zoidion is pertinent at a birth? That the

zoidion is represented only through the planet? " (The Anthology, Book 1,

p. 8)

 

Then with Gemini Valens states:

 

" And all the things that the ruler is at times accustomed to produce by its

own nature, whether good or base, or lesser or greater, each one of the

[signs] will also produce according to whether the figure-description of

its ruler is operative or unprofitable, in order that we should not seem to

be writing the same matters. "

 

Rob Hand's note:

 

" In the discussion of Aries, it seemed that the ruler accepted

responsiblity for the affairs of the [sign] and administrated for it,

depending on whether it was situated in an active place. Here the text says

that the [sign] will effect whatever the ruler would effect by its own

nature as long as the planet is properly situated, which, on the face of

it, would seem to be contradictory to the earlier remark. " (p. 11)

--------------------------

 

[Therese:] I think we can safely conclude that nothing is cast in stone,

and there are very likely translation problems as well. (Robert Schmidt is

currently re-translating Valens.) Probably only modern research will

eventually sort it all out. One thing we can conclude from the early texts

is that the sign and its lord were closely wed, and sign traits were

generally related to their rulers. This central idea has generally been

lost in today's tropical astrology which seems to emphasize the qualities

(cardinal, fixed, mutable) and the elements over planetary sign lords.

 

>[sari wrote:]and it's not Gemini for Flatley but Virgo. Valens writes

about Virgo:

 

>Those who are so born are good, modest, involved with the mysteries, full of

>care, those who lead a diverse life, managers of the property of others,

>faithful, good at domestic affairs, writers, those who are supported by

>speeches and calculations, hypocritical, curious, initiates into occult

>matters, those who spend their initial resources but prosper in middle age. "

>(Anthology)

 

[Therese:] Most of these traits don't describe Michael Flatley. (writing,

speeches, calculations, initiates into occult matters, faithful, good at

domestic affairs, etc...)

 

I prefer staying with Valens for the moment rather than jumping to later

writers when the tropical zodiac was in full swing, or when other ideas had

been grafted on to Hellenistic concepts. It seems by the time of Al Biruni

that the psychological traits of the planets were already being moved to

the signs; that is, judgements about character were being made according to

signs rather than planetary placements and aspects.

 

Therese