Indeed. But here we`re dealing with an extraordinary person, a celebrity or even more than that. How does it happen to be?

I'm not sure what you're asking. How it happens to be is most likely due to hard work and slick marketing.

The possibility is that you're wondering why a person with an essentially weak chart (or planet) had such a successful life. The problem with this is that it implies that people with strong charts are successful and people with weak charts are not. Or that people with a weak planet would be especially weak in the area of life represented by the planet. This is manifestly false. There are any number of successful people who have weak charts, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Ghandi, and George S. Patton come to mind. One of the strongest charts I've ever seen belongs to a woman who has made a mess of her life and shows no inclination to ever change.

I am, somewhat oddly given my age, not a Beatles fan and never was. I never could see the big deal. That John Lennon does not have a chart that spells out "maginficent musician" doesn't surprise me because I don't think he was one, and there lies the answer or at least part of it. It is others who decide if someone is famous, beloved, or hated for that matter. What may be in his chart is a strong resonance with the public or a chart that defines a particular generation, perhaps a Jupiter - Saturn conjunction. They love him regardless of his seriously debilitated Venus.

The other reason for his fame is that John Lennon worked. He worked hard to realize his full potential and that potential may have been simply that he was good at being popular (my view) or that his music has genuine value (others' view), but those viewpoints will not be found in his chart. The kind of person he was is found in his chart, and that he related well to others is in his chart. I don't know that the adoration is so easily explained in his chart alone. But I would never discount the potential for talent and fame because of a debilitated planet.

Tom

I think Bonatti's concept of reception explains quite a lot about Lennon's debilitated Venus. As Tom noted, Mercury sextiles Venus and because Venus is in Mercury's sign, Mercury "commits and gives to the planet its own disposition, nature and virtue" as Bonatti writes in Liber Astronomiae III - Mercury is not very powerful either, though, it's angular, but otherwise peregrine.

What I'm wondering is that Bonatti writes that the only conditions when a planet in a sign of another planet is not able to to take advantage of the reception is, when the planet is combust or retrogade. So debility is not an obstruction to being received. What happens when the dispositor receives a planet in detriment or fall (like Lennon's Venus in Virgo)? Does debilitation get cancelled, like Indian astrologers say, or does the debilitated planet use the virtue it has got for misbehaving more efficiently, or does the dispositor suffer, or something else?

The birth time is disputed. Some say it was a morning birth. Even 6:30 pm is likely too late. This is from AstroDatabank:

?Aaron Fischer quotes his Aunt Mimi in Ray Coleman's "Lennon," McGraw-Hill, 1985, New York, "At 6:30 on 9 October I phoned and they said Mrs. Lennon had just had a boy." This would put the time somewhat before 6:30 PM.?

In conversation ?Just had a boy? could be hours.

If anyone is bound and determined to give him a strong Venus, then 6:20 pm at least gives Venus triplicity rulership. 5:50 pm gives him Pisces rising and Sag on the MC, so there?s plenty of Venus (exaltation in Pisces) and Jupiter savior/martyr/artist/visionary/guru stuff to work with, if one were looking for it. Whole-sign houses for 5:50 give him a 7th house Venus. That would probably work for what many are looking for. I don?t want to sound too cynical (ok, that?s not true), but they had a long and nasty fight at the Tyl forum over this chart (morning birth vs. evening birth, Aries vs. Libra rising). Venus as artist and lover of peace was prominent in the discussion. People seem to commonly want to make him a peace-loving Venusian artist. He was a world-famous showman with a pushy wife. He wrote songs, was usually stoned out of his mind, and made a lot of money. The adoration and adulation is very odd.

People seem to commonly want to make him a peace-loving Venusian artist. He was a world-famous showman with a pushy wife. He wrote songs, was usually stoned out of his mind, and made a lot of money. The adoration and adulation is very odd.

Ha! Wish I had said that

Tom

Apologies to anyone who read what I previously wrote in this spot, but the more I thought about it the more I hated it, so I deleted it.

Let's start anew. It is fairly common to the point of cliche that the 5th house rules creativity, yet this seems to be a fairly modern idea, but with some traditional roots. I searched Lee Lehaman's Book of Ruelrships, and "creativity" is not defined or explained. But Lennon was a musician. Music is a Venus ruled subject according to everyone listed by Lehman. The only minor exception was Gadbury's reference to musical propensity as ruled by Moon in the 9th house.

The problem then is we are left to believe, more or less that a strong Venus gives a strong musica or other artisticl talent and a weak Venus gives us a weak artistic talent. Venus in her fall would give no musical talent or should the native pursue such a career, the result would be dreadful.

However, if we leave this at this level, we create some pretty serious problems for our astrology. I don't now what kind of musician Michelangelo was, but he was undoubtedly a serious and brilliant artist and his Venus is in Aries (detriment). Beethovan's Venus in Capricorn disposed by Saturn in Leo (by Tyl's rectification) may remind us of the 5th Symphony, but is hardly what we would expect in one of the greatest of all musicians. In popular music we have Frank Sinatra's Venus in Capricorn disposed by Saturn in Cancer. Clearly, Venus alone is not going to tell us about sucess or failure in artistic endeavors.

Where else can we look? The best place is the 5th house, but I'm not even sure this is enough. None of Lehman's sources associated the 5th with music, but more with fun (and children obviously, but that is beside the point of our search.) Besides ale-houses and taverns (I'm not sure of the difference but Sinatra referred to himself as a "saloon singer") Lilly tells us the 5th is the house of pleasures and pastimes. Well that's what music is and in fact that is what art is. It is pleasureable, it appeals to the senses.

Using the 6:30 pm birth time, Cancer is on Lennon's fifth house (Placidus) ruled by the Moon in Aquarius in the 11th. Morinus tells us:

"... a planet ruling one house but placed in another foretells at the very least a combination of the meanings or each house at some future time."

He also tells us:

"And any house also has the same meaning by dint of the opposition itself, ..."

Now with the Moon not only ruling the 5th, but being placed in opposition to the 5th, we may combine the meanings of the two. The first thing that suggsests itself is popularity through 5th house things, i.e, pastimes (saloon singing?) or the more modern "creativity." THe Moon is also in a strong mixed mutual reception with Saturn, ruler of the 10th and 11th, so career and popularity. It is also interesting to note that perhaps what is Lennon's best known song Imagine would be ruled bythe Moon (imagination).

The Moon, I believe is also the ruler of all intoxicants. Being opposite the 5th this strongly suggests recreational drugs, and as Kirk noted above, Lennon was stoned a lot.

" ... the opposition of a planet [i.e.e the house oppostite the one a planet is posited in] always indicates difficulty in attaining the good shown by that house while it promotes the evil of that house." -Morinus Book XXI Chapter V

The evil, of course is the heavy use of drugs. The Moon is not essentially strong in Aquarius. In fact she is peregrine, and therefore exemplifies the evil of the 5th house. Whether the Beatles or Lennon's popularity came easy or not is best left to those more familiar with the Beatles history than I am.

Venus does work her way in vit the Saturn - Jupiter conjunction that she disposits, and Saturn is the dispositor of the Moon. She is sextile Mercury, and the Moon is in a mutual reception by triplicity with Mercury in addition to being in square.

I think this shows the artistic component of Lennon's life. As I've said above, the value judgment as to whether his accomplishments are long lived or a passing fancy will be made by others.

Tom

Tom, thank you a lot for such a detailed reply!
First I`d like to name the sourse where I`ve got that birth data from. It`s Steinbrecher Astrological Data Collection. And for I`ve also read some publications where this bith time was used I considered it for usable.
Well actually the point I was trying to illustrate with Lennon`s chart is that we rarely have a direct relation between strong planets and great success in life. Surely it`s a matter of taste when we say that Lennon`s music was great or not. As for me I`m also not a big fan of Beatles, but the fact that Lennon has three debilitated planets in his chart (the very mentioned Venus, Mars and Sun in Libra) but managed to become a celebrity and moreover a legend, a person who still influenses the people`s minds enven after his death. When you see it from the modern point of view, than it`s easy to explane. The very idea of working on your planets, developing your horoscope belongs to the psychological astrology. The traditional astrology sees it much more strictly. In every ancient sourse when they speak about success they mention strong planets. So there is a little contradiction...
Is there really a sextile there (Venus, Mercury)? The aspect is very unexact (Venus 3 degrees, Mercury 8 degrees), plus, this aspect is falling apart. Mercury who is faster has gone away from the exact aspect. I also doubt the possibility of reception between these two planets. It`s anyway very weak when we have a right aspect.

Well actually the point I was trying to illustrate with Lennon`s chart is that we rarely have a direct relation between strong planets and great success in life. ... the fact that Lennon has three debilitated planets in his chart (the very mentioned Venus, Mars and Sun in Libra) but managed to become a celebrity and moreover a legend, a person who still influenses the people`s minds enven after his death.

It does make a person wonder if the return to traditional astrology has over-played the essential dignities at the expense of other delineation methods. And then there is the question of which combination of Ptolemy/Lilly or Dorothean triplicities, and Egyptian or Ptolemy terms to use. And maybe, as I have mentioned before, debilitated planets can actually be quite strong ? It?s just that they may bring the bad with the good. As a larger-than-life ?cult? figure he was murdered, after all. And then the drugs and pushy wife...

Of course it doesn?t matter what our personal opinion of him is ? they?re just opinions. The fact is his name will be around a long time. That makes such an astrological investigation worthwhile.

When you see it from the modern point of view, than it`s easy to explane. The very idea of working on your planets, developing your horoscope belongs to the psychological astrology.

I thought this is where we might be going. Sorry I can't agree with this at all. Modern astrology promotes flattery of the client and little else. The premise of this remark assumes that essential dignity is everything in the traditional reading. That is manifestly incorrect. We did not touch on Lennon's temperament or the significator of the manners, both of which play a major role in determining the kind of person is shown in the chart. We did it the modern way, with planets in signs and houses and aspects only.

A full traditional reading would include, by necessity, a discussion of the temperament and the significator of the manners. These would show us how the chart is expressed. There is nothing in modern astrology that is similar to this concept with the possible exception of Noel Tyl's idea of hemisphere emphasis, which doesn't come close to the traditional manner in depth and precision. We would also go into directions, progressions or other predictive techniqes to show how the life unfolds.

You said the modern pespective makes Lennon's success easy to explain, yet you didn't explain it beyond saying he worked on his planets. This is circular reasoning. If you work on your planets you succeed if you don't you fail therefore modern astrology works best. What if a person has a strong chart, i.e. lots of essential dignity? Does that person always succeed, or if not, do they have to deliberately "work against their planets" in order to fail? If they do work against their planets, why? Free will? We have to be able to do better than that or there is no point in this study at all.

Is there really a sextile there (Venus, Mercury)? The aspect is very unexact (Venus 3 degrees, Mercury 8 degrees), plus, this aspect is falling apart.

Yes. Lilly gives an orb of 7 degrees to both Mercury ad Venus. Therefore each has a moiety of 3.5 and the distance between Mercury and Venus in Lennon's chart is a little more than 5 degrees. While five degrees may be beyond the taste of some, it isn't unreasonable.

Yes the aspect is separating as Mercury is moving a little faster than Venus on this date. However, no school of natal astrology that I am aware of claims that separating aspects are not aspects. Traditional astrology might treat them a bit differently than applying aspects, but moden astrology does not.

I also doubt the possibility of reception between these two planets.

What is to doubt? Venus is in Virgo, a Mercury sign, and they are well within an acceptable orb (moiety really) for a sextile. There is reception.

The traditional astrology sees it much more strictly. In every ancient sourse when they speak about success they mention strong planets. So there is a little contradiction...

There is always a problem when we read traditional texts from a modern viewpoint. The reader assumes that the perspective of the tradtional writer is pretty much the same as the perspective of the modern reader. This isn't true. The older texts do speak at length of planetary strength and weakness, but we have to be careful when reading the descriptions. When Lilly describes, say, a debilitated Saturn, he is describing Saturn, he is not describing the personality of the person with the debilitated Saturn. Modern astrology sees the entire chart as a reflection of the character and personality of the person. Traditional astrology gets most of that from temperament, significator of the manners, and the ASC and its Lord. A debilitated Saturn describes what Saturn rules. So if Saturn rules the 3rd it describes the native's siblings. If Saturn rules the 7th it describes the native's wife, etc. Therefore a perfectly wonderful native with a debiliated Saturn ruling the 3rd is a perfectly wonderful person with rotten siblings.

Rob Hand suggested that many of the older works are not so much textbooks (Lilly's is of course - Hand was referring to several of the Arab works), as they were some kind of study guide to be used with a teacher not as a stand alone work. Most American students and former students will understand that some are more like Cliff notes than an actual text, i.e. a short synopsis and explanation with the depth being left to discussions between the teacher and the student. We should not read everything in those works as absolutes. We should not read those works the way we would read a text written by a Noel Tyl or Stephen Forrest to name two. We should understand the differences before we level the cirticisms.

Tom

When you see it from the modern point of view, than it`s easy to explane. The very idea of working on your planets, developing your horoscope belongs to the psychological astrology.

I thought this is where we might be going. Sorry I can't agree with this at all. Modern astrology promotes flattery of the client and little else. The premise of this remark assumes that essential dignity is everything in the traditional reading. That is manifestly incorrect. We did not touch on Lennon's temperament or the significator of the manners, both of which play a major role in determining the kind of person is shown in the chart. We did it the modern way, with planets in signs and houses and aspects only.

A full traditional reading would include, by necessity, a discussion of the temperament and the significator of the manners. These would show us how the chart is expressed. There is nothing in modern astrology that is similar to this concept with the possible exception of Noel Tyl's idea of hemisphere emphasis, which doesn't come close to the traditional manner in depth and precision. We would also go into directions, progressions or other predictive techniqes to show how the life unfolds.

You said the modern pespective makes Lennon's success easy to explain, yet you didn't explain it beyond saying he worked on his planets. This is circular reasoning. If you work on your planets you succeed if you don't you fail therefore modern astrology works best. What if a person has a strong chart, i.e. lots of essential dignity? Does that person always succeed, or if not, do they have to deliberately "work against their planets" in order to fail? If they do work against their planets, why? Free will? We have to be able to do better than that or there is no point in this study at all.

Is there really a sextile there (Venus, Mercury)? The aspect is very unexact (Venus 3 degrees, Mercury 8 degrees), plus, this aspect is falling apart.

Yes. Lilly gives an orb of 7 degrees to both Mercury ad Venus. Therefore each has a moiety of 3.5 and the distance between Mercury and Venus in Lennon's chart is a little more than 5 degrees. While five degrees may be beyond the taste of some, it isn't unreasonable.

Yes the aspect is separating as Mercury is moving a little faster than Venus on this date. However, no school of natal astrology that I am aware of claims that separating aspects are not aspects. Traditional astrology might treat them a bit differently than applying aspects, but moden astrology does not.

I also doubt the possibility of reception between these two planets.

What is to doubt? Venus is in Virgo, a Mercury sign, and they are well within an acceptable orb (moiety really) for a sextile. There is reception.

The traditional astrology sees it much more strictly. In every ancient sourse when they speak about success they mention strong planets. So there is a little contradiction...

There is always a problem when we read traditional texts from a modern viewpoint. The reader assumes that the perspective of the tradtional writer is pretty much the same as the perspective of the modern reader. This isn't true. The older texts do speak at length of planetary strength and weakness, but we have to be careful when reading the descriptions. When Lilly describes, say, a debilitated Saturn, he is describing Saturn, he is not describing the personality of the person with the debilitated Saturn. Modern astrology sees the entire chart as a reflection of the character and personality of the person. Traditional astrology gets most of that from temperament, significator of the manners, and the ASC and its Lord. A debilitated Saturn describes what Saturn rules. So if Saturn rules the 3rd it describes the native's siblings. If Saturn rules the 7th it describes the native's wife, etc. Therefore a perfectly wonderful native with a debiliated Saturn ruling the 3rd is a perfectly wonderful person with rotten siblings.

Rob Hand suggested that many of the older works are not so much textbooks (Lilly's is of course - Hand was referring to several of the Arab works), as they were some kind of study guide to be used with a teacher not as a stand alone work. Most American students and former students will understand that some are more like Cliff notes than an actual text, i.e. a short synopsis and explanation with the depth being left to discussions between the teacher and the student. We should not read everything in those works as absolutes. We should not read those works the way we would read a text written by a Noel Tyl or Stephen Forrest to name two. We should understand the differences before we level the cirticisms.

Tom

The traditional astrology sees it much more strictly. In every ancient sourse when they speak about success they mention strong planets. So there is a little contradiction...

Usually, when these older text talk about a planet being 'strong', what is meant is whether the planet is angular(preferably) or succedent. A planet with good essential dignity is usually referred to as 'fortunate', though this also implies it is not afflicted by stuff like hostile aspects from malefics or combustion. So a planet that is 'fortunate and strong' is one that has much essential dignity, free from afflictions, and is angular.

I would also like to suggest you consider Lennons chart in conjunction with the group, the beatles, and by itself. Paul and Ringo both seemed to me to do better post beatles than did Lennon. He remains famous, but I dont recall him accomplishing much of note without his bandmates, some people do better in a group than alone. Fleetwood Mac is another example of this. Mick Fleetwood, without Stevie nicks or Lyndsey Buckingham or the McVees is hardly known, yet, the other bandmates seem to do fairly well on their own to one degree or another.

Okay just some things to consider. I realize others may disagree with me on this point.

Granny

He remains famous, but I dont recall him accomplishing much of note without his bandmates,

Only if you discount two of the biggest selling albums of all time that reached number one in both the UK and US and all of his others reaching the top 10. At least one more of his albums reached number one in the US. John Lennon had huge success after the Beatles. I am not particularly a fan one way or the other but I do enjoy some of his music and to say he was nothing without the Beatles is simply not true. At the time he was still alive he was as successful as Paul McCartney and had much more success than either of the other two Beatles.

Tom, you often mention the significator of manners along with temperament as being the essential ingredients to describe an individual. However, I rarely see significator of manners used in delineations or in the traditional texts. Who would you consider to be the main authorities on this?