Therese Hamilton wrote:Mark wrote:

Nixon went on to win both the the 1968 and 1972 Presidential elections. So there was obviously greatness in the man. I think Therese picked that up and perhaps that is a more interesting approach here than simply writing the man off. That is too easy. He obviously had character flaws but there were also remarkable ability in the man.

Yes, and this is how the energy of sidereal Sagittarius would express. It's a sign of both ability and stability. Sidereally we can relate his character flaws to the Moon in Capricorn in the 6th house. In the sidereal the Moon is the 12th lord, and in the 6th in a sign of Saturn, it has few redeeming qualities. The Moon was Nixon's weakness.

The 9th harmonic chart isn't used in western traditional astrology, but in that chart Mars and Mercury in Gemini are square the Moon in Virgo. This is a clear picture of "lies" and dishonesty. So we have two very different takes on Nixon: the benefic Sagittarian stellium which brought him to power, and the afflicted natal Moon.

Any birth chart must have signatures of power if the owner of the chart is elected twice to the presidency of the United States. And in the sidereal zodiac the Aries trigon of signs (Aries, Leo, Sagittarius) contain that power if the proper planets are found in those signs. In Nixon's chart the Sun and Jupiter are very powerful in Sagittarius.

I agree about the Moon but also Mercury too, both in detriment and both ruling the two Lots. I think it was always going to end badly for Nixon.

Margherita wrote:

But are you sure? Have you ever given a look to a Medieval/Renaissance manual?

No, Margherita, I confess I have not looked at the "Renaissance manual." I have stopped my studies at the Arabic era because my interest lies more with Hellenistic principles. Also, Rob Hand has mentioned that many new concepts appeared in Bonatti out of the blue.

I do have the beautiful edition of Lilly published the Astrology Classics here in America. But I definitely am not very knowledgeable on Bonatti. I have only the smaller books published by Robert Schmidt. I don't have the Dykes translations.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
I do have the beautiful edition of Lilly published the Astrology Classics here in America. But I definitely am not very knowledgeable on Bonatti. I have only the smaller books published by Robert Schmidt. I don't have the Dykes translations.

For me Medieval and Renaissance manuals are the best ones, because there are tons and tons of nativities, of princes, queens, and common people.

For example I would become mad to have an English translation of Giuntini Speculum,

margherita

margherita wrote: For me Medieval and Renaissance manuals are the best ones, because there are tons and tons of nativities, of princes, queens, and common people.

For example I would become mad to have an English translation of Giuntini Speculum,

margherita

So "Traditional Astrology" covers a very broad spectrum of centuries, and there have been many changes since Hellenistic times. It's no wonder that there is confusion about interpretation. It's almost like it's necessary to discuss one text at a time, and we need different threads for Hellenistic and Renaissance principles.

Hi all,

Therese, what Margherita is pointing out is that refering to people as Jovial and so forth is common in medieval & Renaissance astrology and thus isn't modern.

While the idea that an empirical validation to astrology is something that I feel is inimical to astrology itself, I am enjoying the thread and have no desire to derail it.

GR wrote:Hi all,

Therese, what Margherita is pointing out is that refering to people as Jovial and so forth is common in medieval & Renaissance astrology and thus isn't modern.

While the idea that an empirical validation to astrology is something that I feel is inimical to astrology itself, I am enjoying the thread and have no desire to derail it.

Thanks, Gabe. I do find the term "medieval" confusing, because we go back to the Arabic era there, and then we go on to Bonatti and later. What are the first texts that began to emphasize traits such as "jovial" and so forth?

So we have the Latin-Medieval period which begins around the 6th century, but also the Arabic era which begins in the 8th century, but Arabic astrology is closer to the Hellenistic. So two different strands of astrological practice ran concurrently. Then the Renaissance period is later, beginning in the 1400s.

It's no wonder that Kepler College spends so much time on the history of astrology. New students of astrology have a lot more to sort out than we did in the 60s and 70s.

Hi Therese,

I don't know if we can put Latin astrology back to the 6th century? That really doesn't get going until the introduction of Arabic astrological texts in the 12th C. Until then it seems that astrology is just dormant in the Latin West. The Byzantine Greeks, however, practiced it until the fall of Constantinople. And then there's the point in Arabic astrology where it gets re-conceptualized and thus breaks off from the Hellenistic strand, around the time of Al-Kindi & Abu Mashar. So yeah, it gets more & more complicated.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
It's no wonder that Kepler College spends so much time on the history of astrology. New students of astrology have a lot more to sort out than we did in the 60s and 70s.

My dear, obviously I know quite well when Renaissance is. I live in a country and in a place where we have from Colosseum (72 AD) to Saint Peter (1626) and they look very different.

But on the other hand I would say that traditional astrology is not only Vettius Valens. If Valens does not look to the ruler of the soul or the temperament, many ( the great part) did....

In every case I absolutely agree with Gabe which is very difficult to show that everybody using sidereal zodiacal is right, and the rest is wrong (as whatever, not just this). I'm sure that if I open Nixon solar return (but not just me, there are a lot of great astrologers here) I can show you whatever.

margherita

Margherita wrote:

My dear, obviously I know quite well when Renaissance is. I live in a country and in a place where we have from Colosseum (72 AD) to Saint Peter (1626) and they look very different

.

Of course you know the period of Renaissance astrology, Margherita. I'm suggesting that others may not know, and that includes myself.

A bright light bulb has just come on in my (...mmmm.....aging) brain! I may have been misunderstanding the meaning of "traditional" as used by long-time members of this forum.

Mark? May we have a good definiton of "Traditional" as you and others here understand it?

thanks,
Therese

I have been taking a look at the chart for eminence rules indicators. There seem to be many many different approaches to assessing this. Fixed stars, lots, doryphory, position of luminaries etc.

As Therese pointed out there are fixed star connections to the MC (Rigel) and Venus (Fomalhaut)

Abu Ali Al Khayyat's method 'Testimonies indicating nativities of Kings indicates that one of the clearest indicators of eminence is the presence of bright fixed stars , of benefic nature, within 1 degree of the MC or lights.

Tropically I notice one chart indication seems to fit one of William Lilly's rules for eminence is that the Lord of the ASC (Mercury) applies to an exalted planet (Venus). That seems the case here and Mercury is also MC ruler. Lilly states the ASC Lord needs to be angular house and it is if we use angular or equal houses. Venus here is strongly in sect in a night chart and feminine sign. It is ruler of the lot of spirit and conjunct the benefic star Fomalhaut.

It also worth pointing out that the sect light (the Moon) is in a much better position in Aquarius (tropical) than Capricorn (sidereal) where it is in detriment. It has some dignity in its decan and is in a masculine sign.

I am not very knowledgeable about doryphory (what Schmidt calls spear-bearers). However, its one of Ptolemy's main ways of identifying eminence in a nativity. As I understand it oriental planets to the Sun are attendants while occidental planets to the Moon attend as spear-bearers.

Here the sect light (Moon) is attended by Venus. The Sun is attended by an oriental Mercury, Jupiter and Mars.

All these planets are free of the beams. Venus is in sect, exalted and conjunct a bright fixed star. It is angular using whole sign houses. Jupiter is out of sect, while Mercury is common but tends to be more favoured in a day chart oriental. However, Mars is in sect here. Both Mercury and Mars would seem quite effective spear bearers here for the Sun.

Tropically Mars is the dispositor of the North Node which falls in the 7th house by quadrant houses. Tropically Jupiter is in its sign of fall would be less inclined to deliver here. Venus is the only exalted doryphory planet and this gives it special prominence.

Mark

Therese wrote:

Mark? May we have a good definiton of "Traditional" as you and others here understand it?

Hello Therese,

I will not give you my definition. That could start a debate in itself. Here are the forum guidelines which set out the agreed approach to the term 'traditional' here on the Skycript forum:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1877

Mark

Therese wrote:

In Nixon's chart the Sun and Jupiter are very powerful in Sagittarius.

Are you considering sect in this assessment? I thought your approach was strongly influenced by hellenistic astrology?

Certainly Jupiter is very dignified. However, its out of sect in this chart.

Looking at the Sun we would have had a much better indication of eminence sidereally if this had been a day chart. Abu Ali Al Khayyat's suggests its best to have a luminary in its exalted sign according to sect-especially in the 1st or 10th house. He does also mention having a royal sign (Leo) on the ASC with its ruler in the 1st or 10th in a day chart. Like the hellenistic astrologers Abu Ali Al Khayyat's gives strong consideration to sect with more focus on the Moon in a night chart. Thus from a traditional perspective the Sun in a night chart and in a non-angular house would appear less convincing as an eminence marker in this chart.

Mark