Olivia wrote:Bonatti made this rather interesting comment about the nodes:

....whenever the Head is in any house which signifies good, he will always increase it by one-third. And whenever the Tail is in any house wihch signifies good, it will always take away one-third of the good. And whenever it is in some house which signifies evil, it always diminishes one-third of the evil, just as if the Head were in some house which signifies evil, it will increase it by one-third.

This should be the other version of the story

I believe it is because the Latin translation from Greek astrology for Nodes was "producens" , increasing and deprimens, i.e. decreasing, surely with reference of the rising of the planet towards north or the descending to south.

So the point for astrologers was what nodes add and what they subtract.
In every case, in my opinion, hardly the Tail with a benefic like Jupiter increases the good.

Happy New Year, Margherita

Is there a consensus on Ronald Reagan's birth time now? I saw at least four mentioned in one place. Churchill's South node was in house 1 I think and Abu Ali Al Khayyat says of this: "trouble,decrease and hindrance in all undertakings" This may seem unlikely in a successful war leader but remember that for most of his political career he was in the wilderness and largely unliked. In the First World War he was behind the Gallipoli campaign which was a failure and after the Second World war an adoring public showed their gratitude for his inspiring leadership by voting against him in the election.

The first big media event I remember was his state funeral and I agree it would be interesting to look at his chart.

There are two things I see in common in the two men.Clearly they obtained the modern equivalent of kingship in that Reagan was head of state and Winston, whilst constitutionally a minister of the king behaved like and was perceived as a the country's leader during the war and overshadowed the real king George VI.

One typical way of assessing potential in this regard is mentioned by Abu Ali again in Ch 6 of "Judgement of Nativities". He is mainly concerned with fixed stars, luminaries and the ASC & MC though and not the nodes.

The other thing I have noticed is that both men were percieved as being none too bright. Churchill claimed he was a dunce in school and in Britain most in the media thought Reagan was dim.

I will have another look at Winston's chart later

Matt

Unfortunately there is no documented birth time for Reagan. Dr. H claims that something like 50 undocumented times have emerged. The one accepted for a while was 4:16 am with Sagittarius rising as that was said to be on a birth certificate and it was vouched for by one of his daughters on a TV program. However, when a birth certificate emerged, it did not list a time. Some have gone so far as to say his birth date is wrong in spite of the birth certificate.

Dr. H rectified Reagan's chart and came up with a time of:4:54:08 am which gives him Capricorn rising. His sunny disposition seems more Sagittarius-like to me, but not every Cappy rising is grumpy.


What is intriguing regarding the birth times is whether or not Ronald Reagan believed astrology worked. Prior to Donald Regan revealing that Nancy Reagan used astrology to arrange the President's schedule, astrologer Debbie Kempton Smith made the following claim:

Even President Reagan has admitted he believes in astrology, so much so that his birth time is, in reality, different in the ones we see in the magazines. Secrets from a Stargazer's Notebook - Bantam Books 1982 p xiv

Smith offers no documentation for the claim much less a time. Nancy Reagan used the advice of San Francisco astrologer Joan Quigly, which became known in 1988. The President denied "believing in" astrology at that time.

Tom

*************************************************************

I edited out some comments as I misunderstood Matt in a couple of places. I ought to lay off until I feel better. Sorry for the confusion.

Matt and Tom, thanks for the replies.

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire. Britney Spears and Brad Pitt have Venus and Mars conjunct South Node. Both of these are in Capricorn.

I am interested in observations. Successful careers? Are these placements detrimental for the planets which they signify?

Was churchill really a "dunce" being head of state and saving Britain from Nazis? He was as a young man reckless and went on "adventures" had his writing published early on and earned sufficient cash from that to not need to be a politician. But then he had a weight problem... Jupiter in Libra taken too far?

I want pluses and minuses, I want balanced analysis. You may quote more traditional literature, but guys, please give me your opinions too. Thanks.

For Britney Spears birth data I have : Dec 2nd 1981 1:30 am CST in Mahon MS 34N49 89W31 with ASC Libra 03 23'.

Saturn is exalted in the 1st house but at 25 58' libra is far from angular.

I am not familiar with Miss Spear's oeuvre but I gather that her act is as well-known for the scanty outfits and dancing as it is for her singing.

Note that Venus has some dignity in capricorn,is occidental and far from the Sun.Venus in Cap is also considered to indicate passion in a women in a nocturnal nativity so maybe her sexiness is more than an act. On the other hand Mercury is combust, oriental and scores minus 5 in essential dignity so it is small wonder she attended a performing arts school rather than a more academic-focussed establishment.

Further to the passionate nature Venus is aspected by Mars and Saturn.
There is an article by Kim on the site that explains this.

Now to SN at 23 10' Cap and Venus 25 07' Cap in the 4th house. Let no one be picky and say that this is not partile. Looking at a brief biog summary I infer that Britney is never far from her Mom and the 4th house can indicate parents.

To go back to a previous question no I do not think Churchill was a dunce.He also wrote history books later on in life. Similarly Reagan was a successful President and was probably a lot smarter than the so-called intelligentsia who could not get round the fact that he was once a popular actor.

Matt

I know nothing of Brittany Spears other than she is in the news a lot. I'm not much on popular culture period. As for Reagan and Churchill being "dim," it's a lot of hooey. During the early part of the last US Presidential campaign, Chris Matthews, hardly a right wing pundit, pointed out to a guest that calling one's opponents "dumb," is wearing a little thin. He pointed out that Democrats have been calling Republican Presidents and candidates dumb since the Eisenhower administration" Eisenhower was dumb, Nixon was dumb, Goldwater was dumb, Ford was dumb, Reagan was dumb, Bush I was dumb, Bush II is dumb." See: "Wolf, Little boy who cried."

Churchill is probably just at the point right now where his influence is beginning to be judged objectively by some historians. Reagan has a ways to go. It was Reagan who, while undergoing all sorts of attacks by his political enemies was asked if he was afraid how history would view him. He said, "No, history usually gets it right."

I've found viewing the south node as "where you get hurt" often, but not always, gives valuable information. Janis Joplin had the south node right on her ASC and she hurt herself, but she had a successful, albeit short, career.

Reagan has the south node conjunct Jupiter and regardless of which of the two times I mentioned in the previous post that we use Jupiter is in the 10th house. Reagan did not have the most successful movie career, but he was successful as president of the Screen Actors Guild and as President of the US. He made enemies of course but all politicians make enemies.

An interesting test of the two birth times might be looking at the time when Reagan switched parties. Through the 1964 presidential campaign Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. Wiki says he switched in 1962, but gives no documentation or citation. I think it was Peggy Noonan who said he switched after the endorsement of Barry Goldwater in 1964. I lean towards Noonan's recollections since one Republican endorsing another wouldn't be any big deal. If we can't agree on the dates for the switch, picking the correct chart won't be easy this way.

Tom

Edit: I found this at a UVA website:

Reagan switched political parties in 1962 and began a rapid ascent in Republican party circles. His televised speech for Barry Goldwater two years later drew more contributions than any political speech in American history.

Still I'd like a reference, but 1962 is looking good.

However, when a birth certificate emerged, it did not list a time. Some have gone so far as to say his birth date is wrong in spite of the birth certificate.

I love this on astrologers. More than one astrologer who didn?t had the skill to actually rectify the chart of Obama, when the Birth certificate emerged declared that it was false "based on my rectification".

Many others had the common sense to drop the theme and pretend it never happened

Once again, thanks for the replies. I can see this forum has some very knowledgable astrologers.

Here is where I am going with this thread, without wanting to change or re-write what is accepted knowledge. I?ll begin with what I am familiar which is Christian Astrology:

"Neither part of fortune, North node, South node do emit any radiation"

"North Node is as Jupiter, South Node is a Saturn and Mars" p.533 CAIII

This is interesting since the same result is given for for North and South:

"Moon with North Node or South Node shows active spirits, prompt to any science" p.544

About Mercury: "with North Node or South Node, he renders most accute and witty??? And good linguists speak many languages." p.545



There are many instances in which South Node is described by Lilly as leading to illness, and misfortune through soldiers, theifs and other nasty people. But here are a couple of quotes which give contrary evidence in Lilly.



Now my President, Prime Minister, popstar and Filmstar:

In the light of Lilly we have South Node as a body without its own "radiation", although he states that it is of the nature of Saturn and Mars. I find this very interesting.

Brad Pitt has Mars conjunct SN in Capricorn. He is in films in which he is a fighter, and not just any old fighter, but a legendary fighter, one who is deified. Fight Club, Snatch, Troy, he?s Achilles. Mars for Pitt appears to be not just exalted but taken to the next level... invincibility, it is almost excessive in Fight Club where he takes absolute pleasure in destruction. Pitt?s Mars is 2 degrees orb conjunct SN.

For closer Orb Zinedine Zidane has Mars conjunct SN in Cancer in the 3rd house. He is a great French footballer. Won the World Cup in 98, European Cup in Euro 2000, and Champions League in 2002 with Real Madrid.


Here is the SN thing. He is down in Wikipedia, for a notorious incident involving provokation from another player for which he reacted with violence. But then again, he?s been awarded the FIFA world player of the year no less than 3 times and awarded the World Cup golden ball in 2006.


So what we are beginning to see is not illness in Pitt?s case, but "great activity" which is quoting Lilly now.


So using Lilly as a guide, we have South Node as a distinctly active, if not over-active area. Honour and success though is not denied. Disease and fraud which Lilly seems to point towards is not the mainstay here. But rather good health and extreme success when this person is successful.


Churchill and Reagan I believe are leaders who are deified by large numbers of people in their countries, for standing up for "freedom", which is your Jupiter signification. In Scorpio Reagan was a Hawk, an military supporter, though not a war mongerer. He is famed for expanding American economy. Which is your Jupiter signifier, though of course I am not denying that a price was paid at the same time.


Churchill formed Alliances. SN Jupiter in Libra. He would have never wn the war without the US on his side which is one thing that he achieved, through his North Atlantic Meetings with Roosevelt. And his talks with Stalin, and getting the rest of the Empire as well on his side, lets not forget the British Empire was not prepared to fight without that promise of Independence. Then we have Churchill the artist... he painted more than 700 watercolours.


I neglected Britney didn?t I? She?s your pin up popstar. But she?s the most successful female singer to date. She has mutual reception by domicile between Venus and Capricorn, but I think that SN there is definitely bringing something extra, since Saturn and Venus are actually closely sqaure to each other, and would lead me to an interpretation of someone more introverted and less confident about their abilities. With all planets below the horizon except for a 12th house Mars, Britney is not meant for the public exposure that she?s had. She has Fortune in the 10th which is a great position, but that?s it.


To just bring all this in now, here are only a handful of examples of South Node conjunctions. I do not refute Lilly?s observation that it is of a nature like Saturn and Mars. But I propose that this is a potentially highly active and expansive point. Like Saturn, because it is not a place of rest and relaxation, all my examples here are workaholics related to the planet in conjunction with the SN.

"Neither part of fortune, North node, South node do emit any radiation"

This means that the planet in conjunction has to be partile but I gather that in another publication Lilly allows a couple of degrees leeway.
Modern astrologers often criticise trad astrology for forecasting doom.Fixed stars on angles likewise were bad news in olden times but like your SN conj they often crop up in successful celeb charts.

I haven't much got round to nodes before but I will look out for them from now on.

Regards

Matt

Matt,

I'm not following you on a couple things. In other words, both of your points in your last post.

Quote:

"Neither part of fortune, North node, South node do emit any radiation"

This means that the planet in conjunction has to be partile but I gather that in another publication Lilly allows a couple of degrees leeway

I don't see where it means they must be partile. The PoF and nodes don't ?emit any radiation?, but the planets have their orbs and moieties. For example, the Moon will be technically conjunct any of them if it is within 6 degrees. Of course, the closer it is the stronger the influence will be.

Modern astrologers often criticise trad astrology for forecasting doom.Fixed stars on angles likewise were bad news in olden times but like your SN conj they often crop up in successful celeb charts.

It depended on the star, just as it still does! Some stars always were very desirable on the angles.