Zodiac Signs and Charles Carter

[Guest guest]

On another forum Dave Monroe wrote:

 

" I also see that the notable astrologer of the early 1900s, Charles Carter,

discounted the value of sign usage. "

 

Hi Dave,

 

This quote surprised me because I always believed that Carter was one of

the main proponents of the usage of today's tropical signs. When I first

studied astrology at the London Faculty of Astrological Studies, we used

his books. I can't check my Carter books right now now due to holiday

activities, but can you tell us where your found this information?

 

Many thanks,

Therese

[Guest guest]

Carter discounted value of sign usage? When did this happen? Carter's

Encyclopaedia Psychological is replete with sign usage. He mentioned

somewhere his Mars in Pisces as basis for a foot problem. I don't see

Saturn in Cancer close upon MC, as throwing over too quickly the mother

lode of planets in signs. That placement is excellent for utilizing the

past all the while Uranus rising is watching today and tomorrow. His

natal was a grand figure.

 

Therese, I hadn't known you attended the London Faculty. Maybe a little

tropical might come creeping back?

 

Dark*Star

 

=========================================

 

 

Therese Hamilton wrote:

>

> On another forum Dave Monroe wrote:

>

> " I also see that the notable astrologer of the early 1900s, Charles

> Carter,

> discounted the value of sign usage. "

>

> Hi Dave,

>

> This quote surprised me because I always believed that Carter was one of

> the main proponents of the usage of today's tropical signs. When I first

> studied astrology at the London Faculty of Astrological Studies, we used

> his books. I can't check my Carter books right now now due to holiday

> activities, but can you tell us where your found this information?

>

> Many thanks,

> Therese

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 11:18 PM 11/27/2009 -0800, you wrote:

 

>Carter discounted value of sign usage? When did this happen? Carter's

>Encyclopaedia Psychological is replete with sign usage. He mentioned

>somewhere his Mars in Pisces as basis for a foot problem. I don't see

>Saturn in Cancer close upon MC, as throwing over too quickly the mother

>lode of planets in signs. That placement is excellent for utilizing the

>past all the while Uranus rising is watching today and tomorrow. His

>natal was a grand figure.

>

>Therese, I hadn't known you attended the London Faculty. Maybe a little

>tropical might come creeping back?

 

Hi D*S,

 

I just scanned a few of Carter's books. Yes, his books are filled with sign

usage, most notably sign-planet interaction. Yes, my first astrological

education was with Jeff Mayo who was a master teacher for the Faculty. I

finished the course while living in Germany via correspondence.

 

It's really unbelievable the personal attention students received. I still

have a folder of hand typed letters (long before the days of computers)

from Jeff with meticulously corrected charts (all computed by hand) and

interpretations. From this experience I have the highest regard for

England's astrological training, and I also believe that no astrologer

should be practicing without some sort of methodical formal training.

 

Tropical come creeping back?? The trigons and polarity are an important

basis of sign interpretation on my web site, but properly adjusted for the

sidereal. Rulerships absolutely can't be applied to Tropical signs. All

anyone has to do to prove this is start with Aries, go through all the

signs and note people they know with stelliums in a sign.

 

Tropical Gemini is about the only tropical sign that seems to relate to its

ruling planet. It's true that this sidereal sign (Taurus) belongs to a

strongly Mercurial trigon (Mercury is exalted and in its own domicile in

Virgo--each sign of a trigon does partake somewhat of rulership traits of

the other two signs) but much of the Taurean (tropical Gemini) energy is

due to the sociable and somewhat fluctuating exalted Moon plus a few Venus

traits.

 

It's interesting that Hellenistic astrologers considered the exalted

planets to be co-rulers of signs. From observation this would be due to

traits of those planets showing up in behavior and professions or

occupations when specific signs are emphasized in a horoscope--all

sidereal, of course.

 

Therese

 

 

 

 

>Dark*Star

>

>=========================================

>

>

>Therese Hamilton wrote:

> >

> > On another forum Dave Monroe wrote:

> >

> > " I also see that the notable astrologer of the early 1900s, Charles

> > Carter,

> > discounted the value of sign usage. "

> >

> > Hi Dave,

> >

> > This quote surprised me because I always believed that Carter was one of

> > the main proponents of the usage of today's tropical signs. When I first

> > studied astrology at the London Faculty of Astrological Studies, we used

> > his books. I can't check my Carter books right now now due to holiday

> > activities, but can you tell us where your found this information?

> >

> > Many thanks,

> > Therese

> >

> >

>

>

>

>---

>

> " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close to Antares? " -----

>

> Post message:

> Subscribe: -

> Un: -

> List owner: -owner

>

>Shortcut URL to this page:

>/

[Guest guest]

Hi, all. Charles Carter's statement was paraphrased from one of his newly

re-issued books being promoted by another Dave on astroamerica.com. He has

brought forth some of Carter's books and I was able to view sample pages (either

on his site or perhaps Amazon) where he cited that planets and houses were of

primary value with signs playing a much lesser role.

 

As an extension of that statement, it was my sense that the use of signs in

earlier centuries (pre-1850, perhaps) was much more restrained with emphasis

placed on planets, houses, rulers, and the many aphorisms (combinations of this

and that linked to specific prognosications). Where signs are noted (again, my

overall impressions) they seemed to have also been linked with specific stars or

were linked to rulers. Little interpretive verbage was given with the mention

of the sign.

 

I do have a small conversation going on with Jane Axtel on another web site

which issued from a discussion with Juan Revilla in which he clarified how

precession-correction processes and the siderealization of the natal chart and

subsequent return charts were mathematically arrived at (sidereal being a small

" s " and not to be confused with the Sidereal (big " s " ) Zodiac framework. I had

asked the list if any of Juan's observations would result in modifying their

application of sign usage? Jane is trying, I believe, to take that question in

directions other than what I intended.

 

Relative to the " sign " discussion, it was also my impression that books and

writings of earlier astrologers such as Evangeline Adams started using greatly

expanded, extended, implied, derived sign meanings --- which, if written out,

would fill a book chapter in their detail and possible meanings. One has only

to look at Cyril Fagan's writings (he was once a Tropical Astrologer of the

early 1900's) to see how his verbiage went on and on.

Dave

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

At 12:57 PM 11/28/2009 +0000, Dave Monroe wrote:

>Hi, all. Charles Carter's statement was paraphrased from one of his newly

>re-issued books being promoted by another Dave on astroamerica.com. He

>has brought forth some of Carter's books and I was able to view sample

>pages (either on his site or perhaps Amazon) where he cited that planets

>and houses were of primary value with signs playing a much lesser role.

 

Hi Dave,

 

I couldn't find that particular reference, so if you happen upon it

again, let us know. I checked Amazon, but the only look inside one of

Carter's books was THE ASTROLOGY OF THE SOUL. The introductory pages

discuss signs in detail. Carter seems especially fond of the triplicities

and qualities (cardinal, fixed, mutable) in sign analysis.

 

I also pulled up a couple of Dave Roell's PDF Carter pages, but didn't see

the reference there, but there was more discussion of signs. (Admittedly, I

didn't spend a lot of time on this, so somehow missed the reference

you mentioned.) If you had the name of the book, there's a good chance I

have it in my tropical book collection.

 

>[DM] As an extension of that statement, it was my sense that the use of

>signs in earlier centuries (pre-1850, perhaps) was much more restrained

>with emphasis placed on planets, houses, rulers, and the many aphorisms

>(combinations of this and that linked to specific prognosications). Where

>signs are noted (again, my overall impressions) they seemed to have also

>been linked with specific stars or were linked to rulers. Little

>interpretive verbage was given with the mention of the sign.

 

[TH] Yes, that's true. What actual sign delineation there is, is obviously

related to ruling and exalted planets. This is in Valens mostly. The

totality of a sign wasn't used in delineation without taking into

consideration the divisions of terms or bounds (each sector ruled by a

planet), decans, dispositorships and other subtleties that aren't used much

today. However, my impression is that much of the old material (circa when

the zodiacs were approximately aligned) is theoretical rather than being

based on experience. This would be due to the problems obtaining

mathematical tables for astrology plus the difficulty of calculating and

drawing horoscopes by hand.

 

>[DM] I do have a small conversation going on with Jane Axtel on another

>web site... Jane is trying, I believe, to take that question in directions

>other than what I intended.

 

Yes, that tends to happen on that forum. I find much of the exchange

confusing and round-about and don't spend a lot of time reading posts.

 

[DM]...such as Evangeline Adams started using greatly expanded, extended,

implied, derived sign meanings --- which, if written out, would fill a book

chapter in their detail and possible meanings. One has only to look at

Cyril Fagan's writings (he was once a Tropical Astrologer of the early

1900's) to see how his verbiage went on and on.

 

[TH] Cyril Fagan is certainly not exempt from sign verbiage. It all started

with Alan Leo who was dragged into court for fortune telling. His attorney

told him that emphasis on psychological astrology wouldn't come under the

scrutiny of the court. Thus, today's tropical sign verbiage was born, each

new author building and expanding upon Leo's early writings and those who

came after him. Though Charles Carter followed Leo, he was unique in

that he added original thinking and delineation principles. Much of his

writing is based on many years of observation and study.

 

Therese