Skyscript Astrology Forum

'Evenin' all
I first posted this to alt.astrology.tropical on April 2nd, and I thought I'd also share it here with you fine people

================================================


I hope you'll all bear with me here, as this is my first attempt at
analysing a horoscope the classical way, i.e.: by giving due importance
to planetary sect. It's a learning curve for me, but a very interesting
one, all the same.
This is in no way meant to be a political commentary, or an exhaustive
analysis, and I'm trying to broadly follow the steps laid down by Hand
in his book "Night & Day", wherein he analyses the charts of F.D.R, Bill Clinton, Nixon, Hitler, and a couple of others in this manner.

First, here's the birthdata for G.W.B:
July 6th 1946
7.26 am EDT
New Haven, Conn.
72 W 55', 41 N 18'

ASC: 7 Leo 07'
MOON: 16 Libra 42'

The Sun is above the horizon in Cancer in the 12th, so this is a diurnal
chart, but Cancer belongs to the nocturnal sect so the Sun isn't as
strong as it would have been had it been placed in a diurnal sign. In
other words, the Sun isn't in Hayz, but this isn't too serious since
there's a 50-50 chance of that happening. It's aspects are a wide
sextile to Mars and squares to the Moon-Jupiter conjunction in the 3rd
house. I've read elsewhere that this latter aspect somehow strengthens
the Sun because it is in the sign of the Moon's dignity and Jupiter's
exaltation, but this"reception" only works one way, so I fail to see how
the Sun benefits. Besides, Jupiter is out-of-sect and both the Sun and
Moon are peregrine, having no essential dignity, so in my opinion the
Sun doesn't benefit at all from this aspect.
Its position in the 12th house weakens it even further. Classically, the
12th house was considered "evil" because it was the house of "open
enemies"; those who would try to take your life or rob you of your
possessions by the light of day. This is where GWB's Sun is focused, and
since he became arguably the most powerful man on the planet, he has had
to deal with such enemies. The Cancer Sun shows enormous patriotism and
self-protective instincts, and it's "the homeland" that was struck, and
in his view, needs to be protected. He has become an icon in that
respect, just as another 12th house Sun did ~ Mahatma Gandhi. But the
comparison stops there!

The Moon is in Libra in the 3rd house. A nocturnal planet in the
nocturnal sect, so she receives strength from that placing. But this is
a diurnal chart and nocturnal planets aren't intrinsically strong in
diurnal charts anyway. Nevertheless, the Moon is nocturnally placed in
the 3rd house ~ the house of her "joy". Hence the talent for feeling out
the public pulse and telling them what they want to hear. Adolph Hitler
had this placement, too, and he was another skilled orator, though I
suspect he could probably pronounce "nuclear" correctly if he'd tried!
The Moon is waxing and applying to a diurnal planet ~ Jupiter ~ ( c.f.
Hitler again ) and this further strengthens the Moon's placement,
according to classical wisdom. Therefore, all 3rd house matters should
go relatively well for him, as should 12th house matters ~ but more
because of giving the public what they need ( Moon ) than because of the
strength of his deeper character ( Sun )

Mercury is an evening star and therefore nocturnal. It is also
nocturnally placed, being in the opposite hemisphere to the Sun, and
angular. This is a strong Mercury and it is conjunct Pluto, indicating a
very powerful drive to persuade and transform others through the power
of speech, a valuable gift for any politician! It also rules the 11th
house, the house of the "Good Daemon", and "boons from the King", so I
think this placement, above any other, is what got him into the White
House.

I won't attempt to delineate every planet, as that would make this post
far too long, but I do want to take a look at that Saturn, because I
think its position is fascinating:

Saturn is a diurnal planet in a diurnal chart and diurnally placed. The
only thing that keeps Saturn from being in Hayz is its placement in the
nocturnal sign of Cancer. Nonetheless, here we have a powerful Saturn,
bringing natural authority, maturity, discipline and respect. It also
occupies the 12th house, where it has its "joy" and is also in a mixed
reception with the Moon, indicating public approval for all the better
Saturnine qualities.
It is, however, essentially weak in its detriment, showing, I believe, a
misuse of those qualities through an over-weaning tendency towards
clannishness and pure self-defence. Saturn in Cancer is the
father-figure who is too "cold", stiff and rigid. He wants to appear
warm and nurturing, but somehow he doesn't quite pull it off.
Interestingly, two other politicians whose charts I've seen also have
Saturn in sect but in detriment. One is the aforementioned Herr Hitler,
and the other is Bill Clinton, who both show Saturn in Leo above the
horizon. It was pure ego that brought them low, and I rather suspect
that it might be a too rigid focus on defensive clannishness that cuts
the root from Bush's bush, astrologically speaking. We'll see next
November, no doubt.

Anyway, as I said, this is my first attempt at analysing a chart the
classical way and I've found it fascinating to have a go.

Whaddyathink? Don't give up the day-job, or what?

Hi Pete,

I'm going to limit my comments these things tend to reflect more political viewpoints than astrological. First off George Bush has about as much in common with Adolph Hitler as I do with Jennifer O'Neill, an actress with whom I share a birthday, and therefore every one of her planets, save the Moon, is in the same place as mine. Lots of people with ugly Mars-Saturn squares do not end up as genocidal maniacs. Comparisons by similar positions aren't too helpful.

The following explanation of W's Sun is taken from an interview given by Robert Hand a few years ago. Why would a 12th house Sun seek what is probably the ultimate in limelight: the US Presidency? Planets in the 12th do not act out very well unless they find a way out. One way out is aspect and the best way is aspect with reception. The reception does not have to be mutual. W's Sun in Cancer is square both its major dispositors, Moon and Jupiter (exaltation ruler of Cancer). These two planets get the Sun out into the open. The combination of aspect and reception is enough. Jupiter crossed his IC by secondary progression I think when he was elected in 2000.

W's Mercury is accidentally strong on the ASC. A case can be made that he is a fairly eloquent giver of prepared speeches, but less gifted when making off the cuff remarks. I suspect this is due to his choleric temperament rushing to get the words out (Mercury on the ASC), but getting them balled up in the process. It may be a case of trying to sound regal (Mercury in Leo) but Mercury makes no strong aspects to any of the classical planets and sort of runs away with things by himself.

I don't know that Saturn in Cancer is cold and stiff, although the President does appear that way. Saturn is in detriment in Cancer because Saturn is boundries and limits, and water by itself, has none. So cold definitley, but I think we have to look elsewhere for the rigidity. His ASC is in a fixed sign, but I'm not so sure he is as rigid intellectually as you might believe. I can't recall an administration that was willing to change its mind on a policy after things didn't work out. The steel tariffs come to mind. Once it was clear that wasn't working, they we're dropped. Economic revisions (downward) have been made several times as well. The previous administration would declare war before it admitted a mistake or made a reversal. Strong willed yes (Mercury in a fixed sign conjunct the ASC), but rigid has more negative connotations and is probably closer to a value judgment than an observation. No one is required to agree just because a person is strong willed either.

I think you have a good grasp of sect, but may have over-emphasized it a bit. Does anyone really know what to do with a planet in hayz? Lilly didn't seem to. Saturn does joy in 12 possibly because it is more difficult for him to do harm there. Ditto Mars who joys in the 6th. If you have to have Saturn in Leo (and I do), then sticking him in the 12th may not be a bad idea (mine's there, too).

Overall a nice job.

Tom

PS the 12th is secret enemies; the 7th is open enemies.

Hi Tom,
thanx for your comments. I just want to respond briefly to a couple of them:

I'm going to limit my comments these things tend to reflect more political viewpoints than astrological

Well I did say at the beginning of my post that in no way was it meant as a political commentary and I stand by that. I'm not a political animal and when I look at the birthcharts of politicians I try to keep their politics out of my interpretation as much as possible. I chose Bush's chart because I've always been puzzled over how someone with a 12th house Sun could get as far as the White House. I could equally have chosen the chart of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who also has a 12th house Sun, or Mahatma Gandhi, to name another example. I decided on GWB because of his current high-profile status.

First off George Bush has about as much in common with Adolph Hitler as I do with Jennifer O'Neill, an actress with whom I share a birthday, and therefore every one of her planets, save the Moon, is in the same place as mine. Lots of people with ugly Mars-Saturn squares do not end up as genocidal maniacs. Comparisons by similar positions aren't too helpful.

Sometimes, when I see two charts of people in similar occupations and find similar planetary configurations, I make a note of it. Often it is no more than chance, but occasionally it might be relevant. The point I was making is that the only common thread that Bush shares with Hitler is the *astrological* one, viz: they both have diurnal charts with a Moon-Jupiter conjunction in the 3rd house in dignities of an in-sect Saturn. I made no further comment other than they were/are eloquent orators capable of feeling the public pulse. Hitler was born a few days after Charlie Chaplin and they both shared the Venus-Mars/Saturn square. The only thing they had in common was a silly moustache, so I do take your point

One way out is aspect and the best way is aspect with reception. The reception does not have to be mutual. W's Sun in Cancer is square both its major dispositors, Moon and Jupiter (exaltation ruler of Cancer). These two planets get the Sun out into the open. The combination of aspect and reception is enough.

Rob Hand is one of my astrological heroes and I admire his work tremendously, but here I feel I must take issue with him: The concept of reception as I understand it has to do with familiarity and a willingness to co-operate, at least in horary work, and I see no reason why we can't extend this to natal work as well. In Bush's case, there is no reception of any kind between the Sun and Moon-Jupiter. The Sun dignifies the Moon and exalts Jupiter, but they dignify Venus and exalt Saturn. How, therefore, do the Moon and Jupiter co-operate and help the Sun, especially when the Moon is peregrine, cadent and rules the 12th house? I can see how the square from Jupiter might help him slightly, given that it rules the 9th house ( GWB is a lawyer ), but it holds only minor dignity by term and is out-of-sect, so has very little essential strength.

I think you have a good grasp of sect, but may have over-emphasized it a bit. Does anyone really know what to do with a planet in hayz?

There's been quite a discussion about this point on alt.astrology.tropical lately. Hand refers to a combination of quality and strength being present, but quite in what proportions and how they are used by the native isn't entirely clear. I suspect that house placement, aspects and receptions would give more clues. Hand's book "Night & Day" was meant to be an introduction to the concept of planetary sect, ( and an excellent one it is, too! ). I just wish he'd publish something that reflects his latest ideas!
What is known with reasonable certainty is that the astrologers of the classical period considered the diurnal/nocturnal status of a chart to be very, very important and they considered a planet in hayz to be really powerful; by enlarge able to express it's essential qualities at their best, modified ~presumably ~through sign position and aspects. I have the Moon in hayz in the 9th house trine the Sun in Pisces, and I think I'm far more lunar by nature than solar, and this has been reflected ( no pun intended! ) as much in my choices of career as in my character. When assessing the LoG, I would definitely include strength by sect, therefore, I consider the Moon to be my chart ruler and LoG. Understanding the concept of sect has helped me to understand where my greatest strength actually lies, and I think if we ignore it we miss something really important.

Overall a nice job.

Thanks Tom.

PS the 12th is secret enemies; the 7th is open enemies.

IIRC, this is a medieval modification without Hellenistic precedent, due to misunderstandings and mistranslations of earlier work. Robert Schmidt has written a fine article on Hellenistic house meanings, called "Facets Of Fate". I can't offhand recall the URL for it, but I think you'll find it on the Project Hindsight website, which, I'm glad to say, is up and running again! It's definitely worth a lot of study and to my mind, the classical astrologers made perfect sense in the assignments of house rulerships.
Cheers...

Facets of Fate article

http://www.widgetsworld.co.uk/search/ca ... rt_id=1467

Hi Pete,

I chose Bush's chart because I've always been puzzled over how someone with a 12th house Sun could get as far as the White House. I could equally have chosen the chart of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who also has a 12th house Sun, or Mahatma Gandhi, to name another example. I decided on GWB because of his current high-profile status.

There might be a misunderstanding here. Having a 12th house Sun doesn't prevent anyone from getting to the top of a profession, it might make it more difficult. The puzzle, as I see it, is why, not how, a person with a 12th house Sun would seek the limelight. There is no way to avoid worldwide attention when one is the leader of one of the world's great democracies. So why would a secretive Sun look for this in his or her life?

Planets in the 12th have a difficult time acting like themselves. They are tucked away and need a way out. See below.

Sometimes, when I see two charts of people in similar occupations and find similar planetary configurations, I make a note of it. Often it is no more than chance, but occasionally it might be relevant. The point I was making is that the only common thread that Bush shares with Hitler is the *astrological* one, viz: they both have diurnal charts with a Moon-Jupiter conjunction in the 3rd house in dignities of an in-sect Saturn. I made no further comment other than they were/are eloquent orators capable of feeling the public pulse.

While your intention to was to compare two prominent leaders, the fact is you chose, as one of them, the personification of evil, and compared him, albeit astrologically, to the current President of the US. That was bound to raise a few eyebrows. If the configuration you were emphasizing is common among world leaders, then it shouldn't have been too difficult to find another one somewhat less, shall we say, "controversial?" The words "eloquent orator" are not those that come immediately to mind when the name "Hitler" is mentioned. "Genocidal maniac" is the more likely response. You didn't say anthing else, but Hitler's shadow can't be avoided.

I do want to tell you a story about the Charlie Chaplin comparison you mentioned. Many years ago someone gave a talk to my astrology group and put up two charts, nameless, and asked the group to choose one or the other as a person they would like their daughter to date.

Obviously one was Hitler's one was Chaplin's. Hitler won. I don't recall what it was but Chaplin had something in his chart that indicated difficulties with women, and that nice old Adolph had Libra rising with Venus in Taurus. We should have learned something from this I suppose, but it was lost on the group.

Rob Hand is one of my astrological heroes and I admire his work tremendously, but here I feel I must take issue with him: The concept of reception as I understand it has to do with familiarity and a willingness to co-operate, at least in horary work, and I see no reason why we can't extend this to natal work as well. In Bush's case, there is no reception of any kind between the Sun and Moon-Jupiter. The Sun dignifies the Moon and exalts Jupiter, but they dignify Venus and exalt Saturn. How, therefore, do the Moon and Jupiter co-operate and help the Sun, especially when the Moon is peregrine, cadent and rules the 12th house?

This issue is not Hand's personally. This is something that has been around for centuries. He was explaining the traditional concept.

Modern astrology stresses aspects and pays little attention to reception other than mutual reception by domicile rulership. Traditional astrology places more emphasis on reception. I mentioned that I study with John Frawley, and if one does that or reads him at all, one quickly realizes the importance he places on reception. He isn't the only one. This past weekend I was re-reading Robert Zoller's book on the Arabic parts and was struck by the emphasis he places on the parts' dispositors' regardless of whether or not the dispositor is in aspect to the part. This idea isn't limited to the parts.

I don't have the exact quote in front of me. It's in The Astrologer's Apprentice No. 8 I believe, so bear with me on this:

Dignity shows the power to act
Reception shows the inclination to act
Aspect shows the opportunity to act.

In Bush's chart we have the reception and the opportunity. However it is nonetheless true that the Sun is peregrine and Jupiter and Moon are not highly dignified. However, according to the traditional rules this Sun is not confined to the usual limitations of the 12th house when its dispositors aspect it. Now, no one is required to accept this simply becuase it is old, but we are left with the incontrovertible fact that G.W. Bush did seek the office of and currently is the President of the United States, a highly visible position. That should show somehow in the chart. The question is no longer "Will young George come out of his shell?" Rather it is, "How did this Sun get out?" Hand provides an answer. It is up to us to decide whether or not to accept it.

IIRC, this is a medieval modification without Hellenistic precedent, due to misunderstandings and mistranslations of earlier work. Robert Schmidt has written a fine article on Hellenistic house meanings, called "Facets Of Fate". I can't offhand recall the URL for it, but I think you'll find it on the Project Hindsight website, which, I'm glad to say, is up and running again! It's definitely worth a lot of study and to my mind, the classical astrologers made perfect sense in the assignments of house rulerships

.

I am familiar with the article from which this is taken. Hellenistic astrology does exhibit differences from medieval and later astrology. If you mentioned Hellenistic, I wouldn't have commented at all. Schmidt has taken the position that Hellenistic is the defintive form of astrology on the belief that medieval and later astrology based its foundations on some things that were mistranslated or misunderstood. This is fine, but you are also aware that Schmidt himself noted that the history of ideas is full of truths that were discovered by error. This statement can be found in the article you linked, and implies that the Hellenists were not the last word on astrology.

Ironically, I happen to be uncomfortable with the notion of different houses for secret and open enemies. It's a little too fine a hair splitting for my taste, but it is accepted in medieval astrology and beyond. I also think the Hellenistic idea of partner is 7th house ,but the marriage is 10th, to make more sense than assigning marriage to the 7th alone. But until I become a full flegded Hellenist, I'll simply keep my eye on such things.

One of the risks Schmidt takes when he appears to dismiss those facets of medieval astrology that he believes resulted from mistranslations and mistakes, is that he leaves very little room for error in himself. Everyone makes mistakes in translation, including Mr.Schmidt.

I love the way the Greeks looked at the world and their resulting astrology. I'm not quite ready to accept their omniscience.

Best wishes,

Tom