Theos-Talk Archives (June 2011 Message tt00095)

As I mentioned before, I'm learning a lot from the discussion between John and Morten around the beginning of the age of Aquarius. I myself, as a student (though intermittent) of astrology should be able to give a better contribution than that I am about to. On Wikipedia (I know that is not the best of sources)I found a reference to a research made by Nicholas Campion (a respected astrologer who not long ago published two volumes on the history of western astrology). 

"The start date for the Aquarian age is somewhat contentious and there is little uniform agreement upon the date or process leading from the previous Piscean age to the Aquarian age (or between any two ages). Nicholas Campion in The Book of World Horoscopes lists various references from mainly astrological sources for the start of the Age of Aquarius. Based on the research by Nicholas Campion most published material on the subject state that the Age of Aquarius arrived in the 20th century (29 claims), with the 24th century in second place with twelve claimants. Eight researchers claim the Aquarian age will arrive in the 25th century while the 21st, 26th and 27th centuries have seven supporters for each century. Other centuries that have a number of supporters for the beginning of the Aquarian age include: 22nd and 23rd centuries (6 each); 19th century (5); and the 18th century (4).(...)Approximately every 2,160 years the sun's position at the time of the vernal equinox will have moved into a new zodiacal constellation. However zodiacal constellations are not uniform in size and so some astrologers believe that the corresponding ages should also vary in time - this however is a contentious issue amongst astrologers.

In 1929, the International Astronomical Union defined the edges of the 88 official constellations. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius technically locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600. Many astrologers dispute this approach because of the varying sizes of the zodiacal constellations and overlap between the zodiacal constellations."

Maybe HPB was wrong; I accept that Reigle can be right about this issue, but I find Morten's arguments compelling.