Skyscript Astrology Forum

what albums are those? except for his beatlees work I've not heard of him doing much.

Certainly dont recall any songs that were hits without beatles.

Edit: looked up lennon stuff and the only thing I see that one would call a hit was "Woman", though as I had to look it up says something about the song I think. definitely did not do his best work alone, IMO. but I am rather biased where he is concerned.

if he were still among us I'm sure he'd cry all the way to the bank, just because I didn't like him... as my mother used to say.

Granny

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?

Ptolemy. See Book Three Chapter 13 The Quality of the Soul (Robbins) or Book III Chapter 18 The Quality of the Mind (Ashmand). Also see CA Chapter 17 page 534 Of the Manners of the Native or Child:

"We may not doubt, but that the manners and motions of the mind, and the greatest part of our principal human actions and events of life, do accompany, or are concomitant with, and acted according to the quality of the Temperature and inclinations; for the accidents of the Mind are twofold, some rational, others irrarional or more proper to the Sensitive power. - CA p. 534.

Cheers,

Tom

Yes, I have seen these references but I haven't seen it discussed very much, nor have I seen it put into practice very often. And it seems a bit too simplistic to me. I don't believe you can leave something as important as the quality of the soul down to temperament and significator of manners. There is still no real agreement on how to work out the temperament even if some of them are quite close. It seems that these things are supposed to convey the real essence of the person but, as I said, it just seems a little simplistic to me.

Annushka writes

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.

Hi Annushka,

In order to properly answer your question about this sextile there are a few additional traditional techniques that need to be applied. I will be paraphrasing from an analysis of Lennon?s chart taught to me by Acelia McIvor (with her permission).

Traditional astrologers look to see if an aspect ?perfects?. IOW, does the Mercury-Venus aspect come to a perfect sextile? Yes, it does, therefore Mercury has not ?gone away from the exact aspect? as it might appear. Instead, the exact aspect has yet to occur.

In the days before Lennon was born, Mercury began slowing down (it is still extremely fast which is a plus for Lennon?s quick wit and intelligence) and Venus continued to speed up. The conditions for Venus to catch Mercury were in place when Lennon was born. By secondary progression, which is a traditional technique, within days after Lennon?s birth the sextile of ?Mercury separating from Venus? shifted to ?Venus applying to Mercury?, as Venus then had more speed than Mercury, all the while remaining within traditional orb (Tom explained the importance of the orb moieties earlier). Progressed Venus catches progressed Mercury, thus perfecting the sextile, at 27Virgo-27Scorpio, corresponding to 1962 when John was 21 to 22 years of age, the year of the Beatles first hit, ?Love Me Do?.

Even stronger than a progressed planet to a progressed planet is a progressed planet to a natal planet, especially from a luminary or angle. In 1957, when Lennon?s progressed Sun sextiled natal Venus (Sun?s dispositor) he formed the band ?The Quarrymen? (very important milestone in his musical career again involved Venus). The Quarrymen mostly performed in Hamburg (Venus cadent). Over the next six years (while the progressed Sun traveled from its sextile to natal Venus forward to conjunct Mercury) Lennon added George, Paul, Ringo and changed the name to the Beatles. Beatlemania began (1963 and 1964 worldwide) with the progressed Sun (acclaim, angular) conjunct natal Mercury (angular) and progressed Venus entering Libra. In addition, the progressed ascendant was square natal Venus.

The rest is history ? astrologically the Venus-Mercury sextile is powerfully configured in Lennon?s musical development every step of the way! Great success came when the prog ascendant and Sun illuminated the musical sextile planets (and because the natal Sun comes from a conjunction with the descendant in Venus? sign). As has already been said, Venus is a key dispositor.

Earlier Papretis and Tom emphasized the importance, not just of the Mercury-Venus sextile and angularity, but also the reception. I would add the reception is extra good because when Mercury gives virtue to any planet in Virgo, it is the sign of both its domicile and exaltation. If you or anyone have questions about reception, there are good articles on this site.

When traditional astrologers say a natal planet is weak they mean weak in dignity, either essential and/or accidental. To be weak or lacking in essential dignity means lacking dignity in the eyes of the dominant culture. Lennon?s art and music was viewed as degenerate by the dominant culture (Venus in fall, fallen from its exalted position in Pisces, thus many view him with disdain). For example, compare to Celine Dion?s popular clean cut music. Dion has Venus in Pisces. Artistically, she never went against the grain. Venus is also a significator of marriage. Compare Lennon?s marriages to Dion?s. He was regularly unfaithful to both of his wives and they experimented with drugs together (lacks dignity in the eyes of the world). Dion is seen as devoted, faithful and drug free (Venus has essential dignity and society?s approval). The concept is that if the world is against your ideas then it is difficult to be successful (without other aspects). It does not necessarily mean weak in talent or creativity, just weak in society?s approval (dignity).

Astrologically, artistic talent, fame and money are three different things. Many talented artists may never get recognition or earn a living through their art (the chart will show which). Lennon?s chart happens to have all three traditional indicators of talent, fame and fortune - I will try to get back to these when I have more time. ITMT, I hope this helps clarify some of the traditional perspective.

Papretis writes

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?

I wonder if Lennon?s televised ?bed-ins for peace? qualify for ?misbehaving more efficiently?. They have my vote ? they led to ?Give Peace a Chance? becoming a world wide anthem. Very efficient misbehaving.

Also, I am not aware that the debilitation gets cancelled, nor that the dispositor suffers, however Deb says,

A planet in the exaltation of another may feel overwhelmed by their dispositor, or through contact with them may experience a personally exalted state.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig6.html


Regards,
AlexMc

Yes, I have seen these references but I haven't seen it discussed very much, nor have I seen it put into practice very often.

I believe Gadbury did it when he wrote about the nativity of King Charles I and back in my head I have Cardan rattling around as using this, but I cannot recall where I would have read that. It is true it isn't used often, but that shouldn't disqualify its value.

I don't believe you can leave something as important as the quality of the soul down to temperament and significator of manners.

"Soul" is Robbins word. "Mind" was Ashmand's word. There is a link there and maybe Ptolemy had yet another concept in mind. I don't know any ancient Greek so I can't say. Perhaps "character" is a closer contemporary English word. When I read Ptolemey that is the word that comes to my mind.

There is still no real agreement on how to work out the temperament even if some of them are quite close.

That's correct, but there are lots of things in traditional astrology that are not unanimously agreed upon. I wonder if the lack of agreement isn't really closer to a lack of full understanding of what these earlier astrologers were trying to do (not by you, but by all of us). I agree with you; I think they are trying to describe the essence of a person, but even that definition falls short.

It seems that these things are supposed to convey the real essence of the person but, as I said, it just seems a little simplistic to me.

It isn't simple. As for temperament the add 'em up style is simple, but in my opinion it isn't as revealing. Frawely's modification of Lilly is, I think, better, but it isn't easy much less simple. And there are other methods.

Unless there is a planet in the first house close to the ASC or a planet in tight aspect to both Mercury and the Moon, determining the significator of the manners can be quite difficult.

Using Fawley's method for Lennon I get choleric temperament with some melancholy. Using Dorian Greenbaum's I get an even split of Choleric and melancholic. So hard driving and persistant. There are no planets in the first house or any planet tightly aspecting both Mercury and the Moon, so we have to determine which planets most engage Mercury and the Moon. There are several candidates, so the choice is subjective, but I like the Jupiter Saturn conjunction as they are in the exaltation of the Moon and in aspect to Mercury, therefore they impact the rational and irrational (imaginative) mind, and probably more than any other planet or planets.

Lennon was not the militaristic or even athletic kind of choleric. His body type is more sanguine. But with Mars (ASC ruler and rule of the choleric temperament) in Libra and the significators of the manners in Taurus, his choice of a Venus Career Capricorn on the MC is not indicative of music, and whether we like his music or not, there is no question that he was a musician by profession.

Some of Ptolemy's words when Jupiter and Saturn rule the manners or soul (I'm cherry picking, I admit it) are: noble minded, helpful, critical, fond of possessions, of good intentions, philosophical, superstitious, frequenters of shrines, hiding within doors. Now there are others in that selection that obviously don't fit. Lennon was not "mad" or "unambitious." But Ptolemy is trying to convey an overall idea not just a list of characteristics. At least I think he is.

Also this is rough work. We are not really into particulars with the nativity at this stage. This is a broad overview. No one is the same way about anything 100% of the time, so these descriptions are intended to be general and should be used that way. We can get into particulars, say his drug use, later on in the delineation.

Without going into any detail I think this does a rather nice job of explaining the man and perhaps the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction being the significators of the manners explains or partly expains his connection to a generation.

Tom

AlexMC and Tom, thanks for your comments. I think this has evolved a fine discussion about traditional natal methods.

When traditional astrologers say a natal planet is weak they mean weak in dignity, either essential and/or accidental. To be weak or lacking in essential dignity means lacking dignity in the eyes of the dominant culture. Lennon?s art and music was viewed as degenerate by the dominant culture (Venus in fall, fallen from its exalted position in Pisces, thus many view him with disdain). For example, compare to Celine Dion?s popular clean cut music. Dion has Venus in Pisces. Artistically, she never went against the grain. Venus is also a significator of marriage. Compare Lennon?s marriages to Dion?s. He was regularly unfaithful to both of his wives and they experimented with drugs together (lacks dignity in the eyes of the world). Dion is seen as devoted, faithful and drug free (Venus has essential dignity and society?s approval). The concept is that if the world is against your ideas then it is difficult to be successful (without other aspects). It does not necessarily mean weak in talent or creativity, just weak in society?s approval (dignity).

This is how I see it too. One must remember that those ancient rules / concepts are based on a different culture and values than our own. Now we live a time of individuality and in a certain sense the more you differ from the prevalent culture, the more you're admired, because that means that you are a "self-actualised individual" and not a "mass person". But in the past to be faithful to your social group, to your family and country and to put the needs of the group you belong to first, was a good and admirable thing to do (in Asian countries it?s mostly still so).

The debilitated Venus in Lennon?s chart probably describes among other things his substance abuse, unfaithfulness, jealousy ? and Venus rules the 7th house, so it tells us also about his wife, and Yoko Ono was not accepted by his environment at all.

The fact that Lennon?s Ascendant ruler is in the 7th house in detriment (I use whole sign houses in topical matters and quadrants in evaluating strength) tells about his depedency on Yoko Ono and for me it?s one of the things that testify the validity of the birth time. Also the Sun is in fall in Venus? sign ? both purely masculine planets are debilitated in this chart, on mercy of Venus, the 7th ruler ? but Venus doesn?t receive them, she doesn?t save them! Or she doesn?t give and commit her virtue, nature and disposition to them. And Saturn, the exaltation ruler, doesn?t receive them either.

This is what Ibn Ezra says about Venus in the Beginning of Wisdom:

??of human nature [she denotes] cleanliness, friendship, laughter, playfulness, merriment, dance, pleasant talk, love, adultery, playing dice, generosity, excessive lust for everything, false testimony, tendency towards drunkenness, natural and unnatural sexual intercourse, love for children, fondness of the marketplace, and in general love of justice and of places of worship. Of the trades [she denotes working with] anything that is dyed and in sewing, She indicates all eating and drinking, the mother, daughters, and the younger sister.?

An Lilly says in CA I, Chapter XII:

?[MANNERS AND QUALITY WHEN MIRTH, WELL PLACED]. She signifies a quiet man, not given to Law, Quarrel, or Wrangling, not Vitlous, Pleasant, Neat and Spruce, loving Mirth in his words and actions, cleanly in Apparel, rather Drinking much then Gluttonous, prone to Venery, oft entangles in Love-matters, Zealous in the affections, Musical, delighting in Baths, and all honesty merry Meetings, of Maskes and Stage-Players, easie of Belief, and not given to Labour, of take any Pains, a Company-keeper, Cheerful, nothing Mistrustful, a right vertuous Man or Woman, oft had in some Jealousie, yet no cause for it.

[When ill.] The he is Riotous, Expensive, wholly given to Loosenesse and Lewd companies of Women, nothing regarding his Reputation, coveting unlawful Beds, Incestuous, an Adulterer, Fennatical, a meer Skip-jack, of no Faith, no Repute, no Credit, spending his Means in Ale-houses, Taverns, and amongst Scandalous, Loose people; a meen Lazy companion, nothing careful of the things of this Life, of any thing Religious; a meer Atheist and natural man.

So I think Lennon?s Venus was debilitated indeed, but Mercury helped him to make art and music from all that by reception. Lennon has three debilitated planets in his chart - he was a talented and successful musician, but was his life generally happy or balanced in the traditional moral / religious sense - no, I don't think so.

When traditional astrologers say a natal planet is weak they mean weak in dignity, either essential and/or accidental. To be weak or lacking in essential dignity means lacking dignity in the eyes of the dominant culture. Lennon?s art and music was viewed as degenerate by the dominant culture (Venus in fall, fallen from its exalted position in Pisces, thus many view him with disdain).

I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, but I am having a hard time with the historical accuracy of this statement and I admit, I'm depending on my memory and basing my conclusions on how things were in America in the 1960s.

Rock and Roll music was attacked from the very beginning, so was jazz, so was ragtime. Early Rhythm and Blues and Delta Blues were referred to as "race music," and that was with disdain. It is part and parcel of every adolescent culture to think that the contemporary adolescents invented everything; everything that happens to them has never happened before; they are all revolutionaries blah blah blah. It's part of growing up, not so much Lennon's debilitated Venus.

The early Beatles' music (pre Sgt Peppers) is as hokey as any Rock n Roll of the time. What separated the Beatles from their peers, or at least of their American peers, was the length of their hair. When they got off the airplane in New York for their first US tour, they had to demonstate to reporters that their hair was clean! One would think the same would be required of every female that disembarked in America. And as part of their act on th Ed Sullivan show, they shook their hair to the screams of the then teenage girls now grandmothers. They were hardly revolutionary at that point, and their music was considered no more degenerate than Elvis Presley's music, which was also concidered degenerate. Presley in fact, had to change the name and lyrics of one his more popular songs from "One Night of Bliss" to "One Night With You." It is surprising he even got away with that since Lou Christe's "Lightning Strikes" and Tommy James "I Think We're Alone Now" were striken from radio playlists everywhere. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" pales by comparrison.

By the Time Sgt Peppers appeared, long hair, the Maharishi and drug culture were pretty well on their way to acceptance by youth and condemnation by adults, and that was admitedly, due is large part to the Beatles' influence but not exclusively. The Rolling Stones were and still are (hillariously) referred to as "The bad boys of Rock n Roll." It was Mick Jagger who first got busted for pot, and engaging in (gasp) pre-marital sex long before Lennon and crew were dropping acid. I always saw the Beatles as cleverly riding the trend not necessarily leading it. And they did so by remaining relatively clean cut compared to the Stones. This is not to say that they were completely unoriginal but, I mean which one, John, Paul, George, or Ringo can out-degenerate Keith Richards?

Where Lennon did attract a lot of negative attention, unrivaled by the Stones was with his "We're more popular than Jesus" statement, and that was taken out of context. I think Lennon's Venus tells us about him, not the reaction of others to him.

For example, compare to Celine Dion?s popular clean cut music. Dion has Venus in Pisces. Artistically, she never went against the grain.

Celine Dion's music is a lot closer to Frank Sinatra's than to contemporary top 40. If that isn't going against the grain, I don't know what is.

Tom

Hi Papretis,

Good insights, I agree with all that you say ? and thanks for giving the Venus references from Ibn Ezra and Lilly. It?s a clear picture of how Lennon?s Venus shows the positive and negative per society?s view along with some of his excesses. All the better for Lennon that his Venus was not also afflicted.

The fact that Lennon?s Ascendant ruler is in the 7th house in detriment (I use whole sign houses in topical matters and quadrants in evaluating strength) tells about his depedency on Yoko Ono and for me it?s one of the things that testify the validity of the birth time.

I also use whole sign houses topically for natal work but overlay porphery. The 7th house LoA has always confirmed the birth time for me as well. Lennon outright admits the importance of partnership and collaboration to him, including his song writing partnership with McCartney prior to Yoko.

I like your observations on the "self-actualised individual" in reference to planets lacking essential dignity and societal shifts in perception and wider acceptance. I had been thinking along similar lines myself, in terms of the ?counter-culture? which, of course, was one theme of the 1960?s cultural revolution.

Tom - I greatly appreciate your thoughts. I had a feeling my view might generate some disagreement. I rather hoped dissenting or concurring opinions would post with references because, as for myself, I do not have any outside of lecture notes from Project Hindsight and indirect references to classical authors (I was using ?traditional? in the sense of et al to include medieval and classical).

I think Lennon's Venus tells us about him, not the reaction of others to him.

I agree that Lennon?s Venus definitely tells about him. It is possible we are talking about two sides of the same coin when I say that, in addition, it also describes the perception of the dominant culture towards him.

Most important to me in this thread discussion is the topic of psychological-archetypal astrologers rejecting traditional astrology based on the belief that it claims a person must have planets in essential dignity to be successful, and vice versa. I have heard this so often in the past (from the modern astrology side) that I wonder if it is simply a rumor or are there traditional astrologers teaching this and, if so do they have references specifically for nativities? I am not criticizing moderns, just wondering where this belief, which seems to be prevalent, originated. Maybe it is a misunderstanding of horary vs. natal. In horary texts the strength and dignity vs. weakness and detriment indicating success or lack of it are heavily referenced with supporting chart examples, but not for natal. Horary techniques for dignity/detriment do not all transfer to natal.

If anyone has natal references from traditional, medieval or classical authors, especially with charts, it would make for a good discussion. I looked through my lecture notes and, as is often the case in lectures, authors, books and page numbers are not routinely stated. I did find one author reference - Firmicus said that someone with 3 or 4 planets in dignity by domicile will be esteemed somewhat ?close to the gods?. In addition, there is the universal technique of using the trigon lords of the sect light as indicators for the brilliance of a person?s life where essential dignity, along with other factors, is weighed in determining the esteem a person was held in (among other things). I'll keep looking.

Tom, It is interesting that you brought up the Rolling Stones and Frank Sinatra. Mick Jagger also has Venus in Virgo. Sinatra was one of the first to (loudly) condemn the new rock n roll as ?degenerate? (1950?s). It brings to mind Plato?s admonition over 2,000 years ago to shun all forms of new music as destabilizing to society and endangering government. To clarify, when I said ?degenerate? I was thinking along the lines of Plato?s viewpoint, but I can see how, these days, the word could be taken to mean a much worse bottom feeder than Lennon (who was not any such thing). I am guilty of using an outdated definition. In this regard, Lennon was not the first rocker to be called degenerate, or the last, nor even the most degenerate. Remember the press footage of the screaming girls? While there is nothing new about young girls screaming, swooning and fainting over popular singers (as opposed to over a concert of cello virtuosi) with Beatlemania it was the extremely large crowds of swooning fans ? it appeared to the public to be hysteria. Hysteria is considered destabilizing (a la Plato). The parents didn?t like it and blamed the music (and the hair ) as degenerate.

Celine Dion's music is a lot closer to Frank Sinatra's than to contemporary top 40. If that isn't going against the grain, I don't know what is.

True enough if comparing music to music. To clarify, I was comparing artistry to approval or disapproval of the dominant culture ? we are talking about different grains altogether here.

Regards,
Alex

Remember the press footage of the screaming girls? While there is nothing new about young girls screaming, swooning and fainting over popular singers (as opposed to over a concert of cello virtuosi) with Beatlemania it was the extremely large crowds of swooning fans ? it appeared to the public to be hysteria. Hysteria is considered destabilizing (a la Plato). The parents didn?t like it and blamed the music (and the hair Laughing ) as degenerate.

Yes there were large crowds and everyone grew their hair long and so it must have seemed to the parents that the world had gone mad, completely forgetting bobby soxers and Sinatra or the more recent Elvis. But the perception of hysteria based on large crowds ignored a demographic fact: there were a lot more baby boomers than there were bobby soxers and Elvis lovers, plus the almighty one-eyed god of television beamed the hysteria everywhere. It was perception more than reality.

Most important to me in this thread discussion is the topic of psychological-archetypal astrologers rejecting traditional astrology based on the belief that it claims a person must have planets in essential dignity to be successful, and vice versa. I have heard this so often in the past (from the modern astrology side) that I wonder if it is simply a rumor or are there traditional astrologers teaching this and, if so do they have references specifically for nativities?

Used consciously or otherwise, this is a propaganda technique called setting up a straw man. Claiming, incorrectly, that the premise is true then knocking it down. My problem isn't so much with psychological astrologers as it is with those who know so little about traditional astrology yet feel free to condemn it for all sorts of iditotic reasons: it's fatalistic, the culture it serves no longer exists blah, blah, blah. And it doesn't matter how often they are shown to be wrong about these points, they still repeat them as though they are facts. Politicians depend on this mindset to stay in office.

I am not criticizing moderns, just wondering where this belief, which seems to be prevalent, originated

It originated the moment someone said there are other planets in the chart besides Neptune. The shock was too great for the system to handle and the defense mechanisms came out in full force.

To be slightly more serious, Noel Tyl makes superficial crticisms of traditional astrology to his students all the time, and they accept them without ever thinking he might be off base. Look at Dane Rhudyar and Steven Arroyo who both stated frequently and I'm sure without much truth, that they've studied all astrology and found it wanting. Why, all a student has to do is take up their mantras and they can ignore everything that came before, and do so with the aura of authority.

But strong people/weak planets is a bit of a paradox. I mentioned this about Lennon earlier, but I thnk it holds true for others in his situation. The timing has to be right. There was something about Lennon )and Presley and Sinatra) that resonated with the times. Put the same man in a different era and we would never hear of him (maybe; there is no way to be certain).

This point was made beatufiully in the motion picture, Back to the Future. The Michael J. Fox character, a youngster in the 1980s finds himself taken back to the early to mid 1950s. At the end of the movie he is on stage playing guitar at a high school dance and breaks into a rendition of the unknown, to his audience. R&B classic Johnny B. Goode. Of course the kids love it, but he soon slides, literally and figuratively into a Van Halen solo and leaves the audience stunned and completely baffled. He looks at them and says something like: "Not ready for that yet, huh? Well your kids are going to love it."

Obviously the teenage world was ready for Chuck Berry in the 1950s but not for Van Halen. The same is true for Lennon and everyone else. I wonder then, if there is a mundane chart that these people connect with to a great extent that is not in effect at other times, for example a Jupiter - Saturn conjunction, which in turn connects with some kind of chart for the beginning of rock n roll or whatever is apporpriate for the individual. It would explain, perhaps via reception, why someone with so many weak planets would excel. The same can be said for statesmen. Would Winston Churchill* be accepted today (although it is arguable he was only accepted when Britain and the West were in trouble and as soon as the trouble ended so did his political career)? Would Lincoln?**

Tom, It is interesting that you brought up the Rolling Stones and Frank Sinatra. Mick Jagger also has Venus in Virgo. Sinatra was one of the first to (loudly) condemn the new rock n roll as ?degenerate? (1950?s).

I don't know that I've ever seen Jagger's chart. Sinatra would condemn rock 'n roll as it was competition. The oft repeated "degenerate" remark is probably aimed at the very name rock 'n roll. No one knows for sure where it came from. Cleveland Disc Jockey Allan Freed is said to be the first one who used it publically. It became widely accepted before anyone realized it was sexually suggestive. It wouldn't have been acceptable to point that out as it would only popularize it more among teenagers, so "degenerate" had to suffice. Interestingly no one knows where the word "jazz" comes from either, but that too, was said to be slang for sex.

Thanks for writing Alex. Your words are always thought provoking.

Tom
*Churchill does not lack essential dignity
** Lincoln's does

Hi AlexMc and thanks for your comments,

I did find one author reference - Firmicus said that someone with 3 or 4 planets in dignity by domicile will be esteemed somewhat ?close to the gods?.

This should be quite easy to verify with AstroDatabank. I found two persons with all the seven planets in their domiciles: astrologer Isabel M. Hickey is one of them, the other is a novelist James Cozzens (I know nothing about him). Both of them were born in 19th August 1903 (Hickey: 8.15 PM CST +6.00 Chicago, Illinois). Princess Margaret had five planets in their domiciles + an exalted Jupiter. Depeche Mode singer Dave Gahan has also five planets in their domiciles; Claude Debussy had four, as did painter Henry Rousseau; writer Ted Hughes (Sylvia Plath?s husband); actor Hunter Tylo from ?Bold and Beautiful?; Larry Hagman from ?Dallas?; our esteemed Deborah Houlding; actor, director Sean Penn; princess Anne; and our Finnish war hero C.G.E. Mannerheim, who was elected a couple of years ago as the ?Greatest Finn of All Times?. Hey, this works! It seem that Firmicus knew what he was talking about.

The interesting point is that these people are necessarily not seen as ?enlightened gurus? or something like that (not at least Dave Gahan or Larry Hagman who both have suffered from drug/alcohol addiction). But the common feature seems to be that all these people are highly esteemed, almost "close to gods", at least by some group of people.

In addition, there is the universal technique of using the trigon lords of the sect light as indicators for the brilliance of a person?s life where essential dignity, along with other factors, is weighed in determining the esteem a person was held in (among other things).

This is very interesting. It?s clear that a planet in debility is in an environment where his/her qualities are not held in esteem. Robert Corre says that a planet in a bad state realizes the affairs of the house ?with reprehensibel methods, poor timing and no happiness? http://www.azastrologers.org/Articles/C ... endant.pdf

Though I don?t agree with everything Corre says in this article, I think this note is good. For me it would seem that when a person manifests his/her less dignified planets, s/he often does it clumsily, in a wrong time and place, with poor control and moderation. It?s like an elephant in a porcelain store, turning here and turning there, always doing something wrong.

As a comparison we can look at people with a lot of planets in detriment. Mia Farrow has five planets in detriment; Abraham Lincold had too; actor Alicia Silverstone has four as has Michael Douglas; John Entwistle from rock group ?the Who?; feminist Betty Friedan; general George Patton; pulp fiction writer Mickey Spillane; musician John Fogerty; director Rainer Werner Fassbinder; nazi Adolf Eichmann; magician Harry Houdini; Indira Gandhi; writer John Gray (?Men are from Mars, Woman are from Venus?); and minister Oral Jones.

Well, what can I say? Maybe one thing might be in common here: many of these people are somehow controversial. They divide people, they?re either hated or loved, and there is a sense of excess (just like Sue Ward writes about malevolency in classical astrology ? it?s lack of moderation) and going too far, whatever a person is doing. Planets in detriment seem to be a bit uncontrolled, knowing no limits. But it?s not about lack of success! These people do have been gifted, successful and famous. It?s another kind of quality. Maybe someone else has more insights.

Most important to me in this thread discussion is the topic of psychological-archetypal astrologers rejecting traditional astrology based on the belief that it claims a person must have planets in essential dignity to be successful, and vice versa. I have heard this so often in the past (from the modern astrology side) that I wonder if it is simply a rumor or are there traditional astrologers teaching this and, if so do they have references specifically for nativities? I am not criticizing moderns, just wondering where this belief, which seems to be prevalent, originated. Maybe it is a misunderstanding of horary vs. natal. In horary texts the strength and dignity vs. weakness and detriment indicating success or lack of it are heavily referenced with supporting chart examples, but not for natal. Horary techniques for dignity/detriment do not all transfer to natal.
If anyone has natal references from traditional, medieval or classical authors, especially with charts, it would make for a good discussion.
Regards,
Alex

The notion may well come from horary. Below I have reproduced Lilly's comments on dignities in which he draws analogies to wealth and success to explain the meaning of dignified planets. In discussing "face" it is clear that Lilly applies such concepts to natal (or at least "genealogies") as well as to horary charts: "and in Genealogies it represents a Family at the last gasp, even as good as quite decayed, barely able to support it self. "

Here is the relevant passage from Lilly (emphasis is mine):

"In an scheam of Heaven, if you find a Planet in any of those Signs we call his house or houses, he is then essentially strong, and we allow for that five dignities; as Saturn in Capricorn, Jupiter in Sagittarius, &c.
In Judgment, when a Planet or Significator is in his own house, it represents a man in such a condition, as that he is Lord of his own house, estate and fortune; or a man wanting very little of the Goods of this world, or it tels you the man is in a very happy state or condition: this will be true, unlesse the significator be retrograde, or combust, or afflicted by any other malevolent Planet or aspect.

[EXALTATION.] If he be in that Sign wherein he is exalted, you may allow him four dignities essentiall, whether he be neer the very degree of his exaltation, yea or not; as Mars in Capricorn or Jupiter in Cancer.
If the Significator be in his exaltation, and no wayes impedited, but Angular; it presents a person of haughty condition arrogant, affirming more unto him then his due; for it?s observed, the Planets in some part of the Zodiack doe more evidently declare their effects then in others; and I conceive this to be in those Signs and degrees where fixed Starres of the same nature with the Planet, are more in number, and neerer the Ecliptick.

[TRIPLICITY.] If he be in any of those Signs which are alotted him for Triplicity, he hath allowed him three dignities; but herein you must be cautious; as for example: In a Question, Nativity, or the like, if you find the Sun in Aries, and the Question, or Nativity, or Scheam erected be by night, and you would examine the Sun his fortitudes, he shall have four dignities for being in his exaltation, which continues through the Sign; but shall not be allowed any dignity, as being in his triplicity; for by night the Sun ruleth not the fiery Triplicity, but Jupiter; who had he been in place of the Sun, and by night, must have had allowed him three dignities: and this doe generally in all the Planets, Mars excepted, who night and day ruleth the watry Triplicity.

A Planets in his triplicity, shews a man modestly indued with the Goods and Fortune of this world, one prettily descended, and the condition of his life at present time of the Question, to be good; but not so, as if in either of the two former dignities.

[TERMS.] If any Planet be in those degrees we assign for his Terms, we allow him two dignities; as whether day or night, if Jupiter be in one, two, three or four, &c. degrees of Aries, he is then in his own Terms, and must have two dignities therefore, and so Venus in any of the first eight degrees of Taurus, &c.

A Planet fortified, onely as being in his own Terms, rather shews a man more of the corporature and temper of the Planet, then any extraordinary abundance in fortune, or of eminency in the Commenwealth.

[FACE.] If any Planet be in his Decanate, Decurie or Face, as Mars in the first ten degrees of Aries, or in Mercury in the first ten degrees of Taurus, he is then allowed one essentiall dignity; for being in his own Decanate or Face, cannot then be called Peregrin.

A Planet having little or no dignity, but by being in his Decanate or Face, is almost like a man ready to be turned out of doors, having much adoe to maintaine himself in credit and reputation: and in Genealogies it represents a Family at the last gasp, even as good as quite decayed, barely able to support it self.

The Planets may be strong another manner of way, viz. Accidentally; as when Direct, swift in Motion, Angular, in Trine or Sextile aspect with Jupiter or Venus, &c. or in Conjuction with certain notable fixed Stars, as shall hereafter be related; Here followeth a Table of Essentiall Dignities, by which onely casting your eye thereon, you may perceive that essential dignity or imbeciltiy any Planet hath."

Tony

Tom, Tony, Papretis -

Everyone, thank you for the great answers! All together it does settle the question very well for me - Apologies for my late post, I was away for the weekend.

Tony, the Lilly reference you provided is very complete ? its good to know the perfect reference is so close at hand.

Used consciously or otherwise, this is a propaganda technique called setting up a straw man. Claiming, incorrectly, that the premise is true then knocking it down.

Tom, you always hit the bull?s eye. I have seen this ?setting up a straw man? strategy used and, true, it is maddening. I can?t resist a WofOz quip? ?if they only had a brain??

All the best,
Alex