Aquarius (1): Standing out from the Crowd
Aquarius, by Dan Hodgkin |
Mark 14
The
Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread was two days away, and the chief
priests and the experts in Jewish law were looking for a way to arrest Jesus
secretly and kill him, but they didn’t want to do it during the festival in
case there was a riot among the people.
While Jesus was in Bethany , eating a meal at
the house of Simon the leper, a woman came in carrying an alabaster jar full of
very expensive perfumed oil, pure nard. Breaking open the jar, she poured the
oil on his head, to the great annoyance of some of those present. ‘Why this
waste of the perfumed oil? It’s worth a year’s wages. It could have been sold
and the money given to the poor.’ They were very indignant.
But Jesus said, ‘Leave her
alone. Why are you bothering her? She’s done a lovely thing for me. The poor
are always with you, and you can always do good to them whenever you want to,
but you won’t always have me around. She has done what she could. She has
anointed my body in anticipation of my burial. I’m telling you the truth,
wherever the good news is preached throughout the world, what this woman has
done will be spoken of. She will be remembered for it.’
Judas Iscariot, one of the
twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray Jesus to them. They were
delighted, and promised to pay him, so he began looking for a suitable time to
hand him over.
On the
first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was customarily
slaughtered, his disciples said to him, ‘Where do you want us to go to prepare
the Passover meal for you to eat?’ He sent off two of his disciples, saying,
‘Go into the city where a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow
him, and say to the master of whichever house he enters, “Where is my guest
room, where I might eat the Passover with my disciples?” He’ll show you a large
upper room, equipped and ready. Prepare for us there.’ The disciples left for
the city and found everything just as Jesus had said; and they prepared the
Passover.
********************
Written in February 2008
‘Go into the city, where a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.’ It was this instruction by Jesus to his apostles in chapter 14 of Mark’s Gospel which prompted me to construct the theory of the zodiacal structure of Mark in the summer of 1989. This particular passage had intrigued me throughout the twelve or so years that I had been teaching courses on the Gospels. Who was this man? He’s not named. There is no mention of him before this incident, and he disappears from the narrative immediately afterwards. The fact that Jesus knew he would be there – just as he appeared to know that there would be a horse waiting for him on which he could ride into Jerusalem – would seem to suggest either that he had remarkable powers of foresight, or that he had set the whole thing up in advance. While this latter is a possibility, the text gives no indication of it, and the historically minded among us are left wondering why such a strange meeting was necessary, and, in the absence of emails, telephone calls or previous visits, just when and how it had been arranged.
‘Go into the city, where a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.’ It was this instruction by Jesus to his apostles in chapter 14 of Mark’s Gospel which prompted me to construct the theory of the zodiacal structure of Mark in the summer of 1989. This particular passage had intrigued me throughout the twelve or so years that I had been teaching courses on the Gospels. Who was this man? He’s not named. There is no mention of him before this incident, and he disappears from the narrative immediately afterwards. The fact that Jesus knew he would be there – just as he appeared to know that there would be a horse waiting for him on which he could ride into Jerusalem – would seem to suggest either that he had remarkable powers of foresight, or that he had set the whole thing up in advance. While this latter is a possibility, the text gives no indication of it, and the historically minded among us are left wondering why such a strange meeting was necessary, and, in the absence of emails, telephone calls or previous visits, just when and how it had been arranged.
The most
perplexing aspect of it, from the point of view of its plausibility as history, however, is the unusual way in which this man was to be identified. We can
readily accept that the plan required him to grab the apostles’ attention –
much as, today, someone might say to a person they are to meet for the first
time, ‘I’ll be standing under the station clock, wearing a pink carnation, and
reading a copy of the Daily Telegraph’ - but for a man to be carrying a jar of
water in those days would go beyond what was required for recognition. Meetings
between strangers are generally done discreetly, especially if there is some
reason for them not to arouse too much public attention. But a man carrying a
jar of water would not have been a discreet sign; it would have been an
announcement in Technicolor and stereo! Men didn’t carry water in those days.
This was woman’s work, at a time when the demarcation between male and female
roles was clear and rigid. It would have been the equivalent of someone today
drawing attention to himself by standing completely naked, or dressing up as a
harlequin!
To the student of astrology, however, the man is readily identifiable as the pictogram of the zodiacal sign Aquarius, and I had seen him as such, but I couldn’t work out why he should appear at this point in the narrative. Why should one of the zodiacal signs be introduced, out of the blue? Baffling, indeed, but then, one afternoon, as I was supervising an examination and idly flicking through a Bible which happened to be on the desk (it was a Catholic school!) I realised, to my astonishment, that this was not an isolated appearance. All the other signs were there in Mark’s Gospel, in perfect zodiacal order, and they were so obvious that I wondered why I had never seen them before, why, apparently, no one had ever seen them before. Some were clearer than others admittedly, and some incidents didn’t seem to fit the scheme too neatly, but the sequence was unmistakeable; it had just been overlooked by generations of scholars who had been asking the wrong questions of the text.
Aquarius, by Salvador Dali |
To the student of astrology, however, the man is readily identifiable as the pictogram of the zodiacal sign Aquarius, and I had seen him as such, but I couldn’t work out why he should appear at this point in the narrative. Why should one of the zodiacal signs be introduced, out of the blue? Baffling, indeed, but then, one afternoon, as I was supervising an examination and idly flicking through a Bible which happened to be on the desk (it was a Catholic school!) I realised, to my astonishment, that this was not an isolated appearance. All the other signs were there in Mark’s Gospel, in perfect zodiacal order, and they were so obvious that I wondered why I had never seen them before, why, apparently, no one had ever seen them before. Some were clearer than others admittedly, and some incidents didn’t seem to fit the scheme too neatly, but the sequence was unmistakeable; it had just been overlooked by generations of scholars who had been asking the wrong questions of the text.
I have
spent a long time since then working on this theory and refining it, and, more
importantly, trying to tease out the implications of such a zodiacal scheme for
our understanding of the Gospel narrative. A zodiacal sequence does not
preclude the story being historical, but it certainly reduces the possibility,
and if it’s not history, or a kind of history, then what is it? I have come to
the conclusion that Mark was writing an account of what we might call today the
‘spiritual journey’, using Jesus as a representative figure – Everyman or
Everywoman – and that the stories in Mark’s bizarre narrative should be read as
spiritual ‘parables’, as lessons on the spiritual life. They are not so much
about a historical figure called Jesus, but about you and me. Mark’s stories
are not simple, eye-witness accounts of incidents which stretch our credulity;
they are immensely rich metaphors which challenge and excite our imagination.
Each section of Mark
carries a lesson based on the intrinsic meaning of the zodiacal sign that it
reflects, and one way of learning what the individual signs represent is to
look at the lives and the characters of people born under them. We’ve done this
before with the other signs and I repeat here what I’ve said so often before:
I’m not making the fatuous claim that everyone born at a particular time of
year exhibits all the characteristics of a certain zodiac sign, that the human
race can be divided neatly into twelve invariant groups. There is infinite
variety among people, and infinite variety even among people of the same sign.
But, there are certain characteristics which can be identified as typical,
which some individuals seem to embody so clearly that their zodiac sign can be
guessed even after slight acquaintance, sometimes just by looking at them.
Aquarians
are among the easiest to identify. The words most commonly used to describe
them are ‘eccentric’, ‘zany’, ‘original’, ‘independent’, and, less
flatteringly, ‘opinionated’ and ‘perverse’. The typical Aquarian, like the man
carrying the jar of water, is one who stands out from the crowd, one who almost
makes a virtue out of being ‘off-beat’. This will manifest in a number of ways.
Sometimes it will be in their dress, but more often it will be in their
intellectual life. Aquarians like nothing better than expressing controversial
opinions, and they seem especially fond of assuming radical political or
religious positions, which they will defend tenaciously.
Many
Aquarians are iconoclastic, showing scant regard for traditional and customary
ways of thought. Both Johnny Rotten, the lead singer in the Sex Pistols, and
Malcolm McLaren, who managed the group, were born under Aquarius, and their
song God Save the Queen, which came out at the time of Queen Elizabeth’s
silver jubilee in 1977, inaugurated the whole ‘punk rock’ movement, and
scandalised the British establishment, which, of course, was its intention.
Johnny Rotten, born 31st January 1956 |
Some of
the most prominent feminist thinkers have been born under Aquarius. (Aries has
its share, but Aquarius has more.) Germaine Greer, Susan Sontag, Gertrude
Stein, Virginia Woolf, Angela Davis, Vanessa Redgrave, and Betty Freidan, were
all born in late January or early February, and these women have been among the
intellectual leaders of the contemporary movement for women’s liberation. Oprah
Winfrey is an Aquarian, and while not exactly a feminist, she has established
herself as one of the most powerful – and one of the richest - people in the
world. Her endorsement of Barack Obama is said to be worth millions of votes to
the Democratic presidential hopeful.
Germaine Greer, born 29th January 1939 |
Vincent Furnier, aka Alice Cooper, born 4th February 1948 |
Barry Humphries, aka Dame Edna Everidge, Born 17th February 1934 |
Eddie Izzard, born 7th February, 1962 |
One of the literary world’s
most celebrated Aquarians is Dublin’s own James Joyce, who was born here on 2nd
February 1882. (Incidentally, Joyce took astrology seriously, and ensured that
all his major works were published at what he considered to be auspicious
times.) Ulysses turned the literary world upside down, breaking all the
novelistic conventions, and Finnegan’s Wake is one of the most
idiosyncratic works of world literature.
Ulysses stands almost as a text-book of the Aquarian vision of
life. It breaks all the stylistic and linguistic rules, but it also presents
the common man as hero, twenty-four hours in the life of a Dublin nobody as
equivalent in grandeur and significance to the ten year peregrinations of the Greek
hero, Odysseus.
For all their individuality and idiosyncrasy,
however, the typical Aquarian has a strong community spirit and is generally
prepared to become involved in environmental and political action groups.
Indeed, they seem to operate best in a group situation where they can maintain
some measure of detachment. They are not, as a general rule, quick to marry,
often preferring less conventional, and less restricting styles of
relationship. Many Aquarians seem very uncomfortable with deep personal
intimacy: the quickest way to lose an Aquarian is to tell him that you want to
marry him!
There are a number of
lessons to be learned from this section of Mark’s Gospel, not the least of
which concerns the symbolism of the water that the man is carrying, but today I
simply want to point out one very simple, and I’m sure by now very obvious,
lesson from this story. ‘Follow him,’ says Jesus to the apostles, and what
Jesus says to his apostles, he says to us. We have to follow the water-bearer,
by being prepared, as he was, to stand out from the crowd – not by cultivating
a studied and annoying eccentricity, but by discovering, and then exhibiting
that which makes us unique. Your individuality is your precious gift to the
world. The world does not need your conformity, it needs your creativity, it
needs you to live as your genius impels you and guides you to live, and this
means having the courage to break through those layers of convention, those
unwritten and unspoken rules of thinking and acting, which would keep your life
and your thought within the narrow confines sanctioned by our tyrannical,
homogenising culture. ‘Whoso would be a man,’ writes Ralph Waldo Emerson, ‘must
be a non-conformist’. These words appear on the gravestone of Frank Lloyd
Wright, the great architect, who was not afraid to defy the customs of his
time, and who produced some of the 20th century’s most beautiful
buildings. He was, by the way, a Unitarian. (I would have loved him to be an
Aquarian, too, but he wasn’t. He was born on 8th June, so he was a
Geminian.)
How hard it is to resist
conformity, even in a so-called ‘free’ society. George Orwell’s ‘thought
police’ are lurking everywhere, detecting and punishing all who dare to stray
from acceptable norms of consensus judgement, not with jail or death, perhaps,
but with ridicule and lack of preferment.
I’ve suffered from this
myself. I’ve been a student of astrology for 42 years, and I consider it to be
one of the most important subjects I’ve ever studied, but I’ve often had to apologise
for my interest in it to people with a dogmatic objection to it – an objection
which has always been based on cultural antipathy and never on personal
exploration or knowledge. Almost everyone you will ever meet who expresses
hostility towards astrology will do so on the basis of inherited prejudice. And
may I just say here that if you think that astrology postulates the existence
of invisible rays emanating from the stars, then you know nothing about the
subject whatsoever, and your opinion is not an informed opinion at all, it is a
prejudice which you’ve picked up from your materialistic culture. Isaac Newton,
one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, and a Unitarian of sorts, was
rebuked for his own interest in astrology by the astronomer Edmund Halley
(after whom the famous comet was named). Newton fittingly replied, ‘Sir, I have
studied the subject, you have not’.
A
few weeks ago I was reading a new biography of Goethe ( Love, Life, Goethe: How to be Happy in an
imperfect World, by J. Armstrong) in which we learn that the
great poet considered that he had been born at an auspicious moment, that his
horoscope was a favourable one. His biographer, who tells us in the
introduction to his book that he intends to show us that Goethe was one of the
greatest geniuses who ever lived, dismisses Goethe’s astrological claim as ‘fantastic’,
meaning ‘crazy’. So, on the one hand, Goethe is a genius; on the other, he’s an
idiot. James Joyce believed that the three greatest figures in European
literature were Shakespeare, Dante, and Goethe, each one of these, like Joyce
himself, interested in and influenced by astrology, and yet it is culturally
acceptable today – indeed, it is culturally required today – to
patronise the astrological interests of these towering geniuses as somehow
indicative of an unfortunate tendency towards superstition which, sadly, even
genius is not immune from.
So, the man with the water
jar is prepared to stand out from the crowd, as is that other Aquarian figure
in this section of the Gospel, the woman with the alabaster jar full of costly
perfume. She breaks the jar and spreads the pure nard – said to be worth a
year’s wages - on Jesus’ head, completely disregarding the protestations of the
apostles who suggest, conventionally enough, that she should sell the precious
liquid and give the money to the poor. Jesus’ comment that the poor are always
with us and we can help them at other times, seems a bit harsh. But, harsh or
not, it’s true. We can help the poor, and we must help them, but we will only
eliminate poverty – material and spiritual – by a complete transformation of
our thinking. This is the real lesson of Aquarius, and this is what I’ll be
dealing with next week.
Lovely! Are you one, too?
ReplyDeleteNo, Wade, I'm a Gemini - but with a very strong Uranus (Uranus closely conjunction Mercury, widely conjunction Sun, square Jupiter.)
ReplyDelete