[Carl Jung on Christ and Astrology]
Although no connection of any kind can be proved between the figure of Christ and the inception of the astrological age of the fishes, the simultaneity of the fish symbolism of the Redeemer with the astrological symbol of the new aeon seems to me important enough to warrant the emphasis we place upon it.
If we try to follow up the complicated mythological ramifications of this parallel, we do so with intent to throw light on the multifarious aspects of an archetype that manifests itself on the one hand in a personality, and on the other hand synchronistically, in a moment of time determined in advance, before Christ’s birth.
Indeed, long before that, the archetype had been written in the heavens by projection, so as then, “when the time was fulfilled” to coincide with the symbols produced by the new era. The fish, appropriately enough, belongs to the winter rainy season, like Aquarius and Capricorn (the goatfish).
As a zodiacal sign, therefore, it is not in the least remarkable.
It becomes a matter for astonishment only when, through the precession of the equinoxes, the spring-point moves into this sign and thus inaugurates an age in which the “fish” was used as a name for the God who became a man, who was born as a fish and was sacrificed as a ram, who had fishermen for disciples and wanted to make them fishers of men, who fed the multitude with miraculously multiplying fishes, who was himself eaten as a fish, the “holier food,” and whose followers are little fishes, the, “pisciculi.”
Assume, if you like, that a fairly widespread knowledge of astrology would account for at least some of this symholism in certain Gnostic-Christian circles.
But this assumption does not apply when it comes to eyewitness accounts in the synoptic gospels. There is no evidence of any such thing. We have no reason whatever to suppose that those stories are disguised astrological myths.
On the contrary, one gets the impression that the fish episodes are entirely natural happenings and that there is nothing further to be looked for behind them.
They are “Just So” stories, quite simple and natural, and one wonders whether the whole Christian fish symbolism may not have come about equally fortuitously and without premeditation.
Hence one could speak just as well of the seemingly fortuitous coincidence of this symbolism with the name of the new aeon, the more so as the age of the fishes seems to have left no very clear traces in the cultures of the East.
I could not maintain with any certainty that this is correct, because I know far too little about Indian and Chinese astrology.
As against this, the fact that the traditional fish symbolism makes possible a verifiable prediction that had already been made in the New Testament is a somewhat uncomfortable proposition to swallow.
The northerly, or easterly, fish, which the spring-point entered at about the beginning of our era, is joined to the southerly, or westerly, fish by the so-called commissure.
This consists of a band of weak stars forming the middle sector of the constellation, and the spring-point gradually moved along its southern edge.
The point where the ecliptic intersects with the meridian between the two fishes coincides roughly with the sixteenth century, the time of the Reformation, which as we know is so extraordinarily important for the history of Western symbols.
Since then the spring-point has moved along the southern edge of the second fish, and will enter Aquarius in the course of the third millennium.
Astrologically interpreted, the designation of Christ as one of the fishes identifies him with the first fish, the vertical one. Christ is followed by the Antichrist, at the end of time. The beginning of the enantiodromia would fall, logically, midway between the two fishes.
We have seen that this is so. The time of the Renaissance begins in the immediate vicinity of the second fish, and with it comes that spirit which culminates in the modern age. ~Carl Jung, Aion, The Sign of the Fishes, Paragraph 148.