Guest guest Posted November 27, 2009 Report Share Posted November 27, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 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: >/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.