Skyscript Astrology Forum

If you guys want a really competent astrologer to learn from, we should find somebody whose Mercury is at the highest dignity possible. Or perhaps be on the search for somebody who has that and teach them astrology. Mercury creates astrologers, right? I just thought it would be appropriate. Also I noticed a few highly known astrologers with their Mercury either in domicile/exaltation or receiving planets in its domicile/exaltation. William Lilly, Vettius Valens, Abdul Al-Biruni, Tycho Brahe, Isabel Hickey, Robert Hand, Dane Rudhyar, Liz Greene. One that I'm very confused about though, is Evangeline Adams. Unless her Mercury receives her North Node in Virgo? I've never heard of reception from the Nodes. I don't see why not though? At least not yet. She has a rodden rating of DD though, according to astrodatabank.com.

Also I have an easier time understanding material from authors who have their Mercury in Air(my Mercury being in Aquarius), even by whole sign aspects. Mercury in Virgo doesn't have enough theory for me to digest their material well enough. Don't tell me I'm all alone on this.

I think the criteria should be having the highest essential and accidental dignity, with no essential or accidental debilities, if that's possible?

We need to find people and divide them by Mercury in Gemini(for those who have Mercury in Masculine signs to better understand the reading material) and Mercury in Virgo(for those who have Mercury in Feminine signs) who fit the mentioned criteria, then maybe teach them astrology. I have a hard time with all this unorganized information on the internet, and having to organize it myself. I can't pretend anymore to understand you Mercury in Virgo's, at least not as clearly as I'd like to. No offense. I'm just not as into details as much as you. There's a use though, we can create a theory based on the facts you present. And as I've previously said, my Mercury is in Aquarius.

Maybe some of you can help me with this.

The criteria:

Mercury in Gemini(domicile), night chart(for triplicity), within 7?(for terms)
Maybe conjunct North Node(it's exaltation)?

Mercury in Virgo(domicile), 15?(exaltation degree), can't have terms and face at the same time and for them to be at 15?.

Then the rest are shown in Lilly's assessing dignity/debility through 'point-scoring'.

MercQuarian, I wonder if the issue is so simple. A strong Mercury would be helpful for other vocations that are probably more lucrative and that do not require the leap of faith that astrology requires (that this stuff actually works.)

For astrology in a counseling situation, one would probably need additional talents and skills, such as a good grasp of human nature and adequate life experience.

In modern astrology, one might also look at Uranus and and the asteroid Urania. Uranus was the prototype sky god, and is the modern ruler of astrology. Urania was the muse of astrology/astronomy. The Ebertins thought that 27 degrees of Leo or Aquarius showed up in a lot of professional astrologers' charts.

For some reason 11 degrees of Virgo became known as the "astrologer's degree" but I am not sure why.

Hello MercQuarian,

I think the criteria should be having the highest essential and accidental dignity, with no essential or accidental debilities, if that's possible?

Like Waybread I feel this approach is a bit too reductionist.

Moreover the question is what kind of astrologer are we talking about? A writer, researcher , teacher, prognosticator or counsellor? And what branch might they be strongest or most interested in?

I certainly haven't studied this topic exhaustively but I checked out the 50 odd charts I have loaded of famous astrologers. I have noticed quite a few famous astrologers have their mercury in the fall or detriment. Here is what I came up with so far:

Mercury in Sagittarius
Robert Hand
Olivia Barclay
Maurice McCann
C.C.Zain

Mercury in Pisces
Bernadette Brady
Reinhold Ebertin
Sepharial
Maurice Weyms
Dane Rudhyar
Copernicus

Waybread wrote:

The Ebertins thought that 27 degrees of Leo or Aquarius showed up in a lot of professional astrologers' charts.

For some reason 11 degrees of Virgo became known as the "astrologer's degree" but I am not sure why.

One direct source for this is Charles Carter: Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology

"The special zodiacal areas associated with Astrology are beyond question those around 27 Leo-Aquarius and 11 Virgo-Pisces."

I believe Alan Leo was an earlier source of the 27 Leo/Aquarius idea. In typically modest fashion his ascendant was 27 Leo!

I opened a thread on the 'astrologers degree' several years ago which generated quite a bit of discussion:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1598

In that thread Kim Farnell mentioned that Charles Carter actually argues against Uranus ruling astrology, and claims a stronger connection with Saturn, hence the emphasis on Aquarius.

Mercury in a Saturn ruled sign ( both Capricorn and Aquarius) does seem to happen in a lot of astrologers charts. However, this has traditional support too. However, if you check out enough charts you do find some spread across the zodiac. In my quick search Taurus and Aries didn't seem to come up much. However, William Lilly did have his mercury in Taurus.

One that I'm very confused about though, is Evangeline Adams. Unless her Mercury receives her North Node in Virgo?

Maybe because its dirty data? The Astrodatabank entry on her indicates she gave several different years for her birth so I think her birth data is really suspect. Check out the source notes:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Adams,_Evangeline

Mark

Mark wrote:Hello MercQuarian,

I think the criteria should be having the highest essential and accidental dignity, with no essential or accidental debilities, if that's possible?

Like Waybread I feel this approach is a bit too reductionist.

Moreover the question is what kind of astrologer are we talking about? A writer, researcher , teacher, prognosticator or counsellor? And what branch might they be strongest or most interested in?

I certainly haven't studied this topic exhaustively but I checked out the 50 odd charts I have loaded of famous astrologers. I have noticed quite a few famous astrologers have their mercury in the fall or detriment. Here is what I came up with so far:

Mercury in Sagittarius
Robert Hand
Olivia Barclay
Maurice McCann
C.C.Zain

Mercury in Pisces
Bernadette Brady
Reinhold Ebertin
Sepharial
Maurice Weyms
Dane Rudhyar
Copernicus

Waybread wrote:

The Ebertins thought that 27 degrees of Leo or Aquarius showed up in a lot of professional astrologers' charts.

For some reason 11 degrees of Virgo became known as the "astrologer's degree" but I am not sure why.

One direct source for this is Charles Carter: Encyclopedia of Psychological Astrology

"The special zodiacal areas associated with Astrology are beyond question those around 27 Leo-Aquarius and 11 Virgo-Pisces."

I believe Alan Leo was an earlier source of the 27 Leo/Aquarius idea. In typically modest fashion his ascendant was 27 Leo!

I opened a thread on the 'astrologers degree' several years ago which generated quite a bit of discussion:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1598

In that thread Kim Farnell mentioned that Charles Carter actually argues against Uranus ruling astrology, and claims a stronger connection with Saturn, hence the emphasis on Aquarius.

Mercury in a Saturn ruled sign ( both Capricorn and Aquarius) does seem to happen in a lot of astrologers charts. However, this has traditional support too. However, if you check out enough charts you do find some spread across the zodiac. In my quick search Taurus and Aries didn't seem to come up much. However, William Lilly did have his mercury in Taurus.

One that I'm very confused about though, is Evangeline Adams. Unless her Mercury receives her North Node in Virgo?

Maybe because its dirty data? The Astrodatabank entry on her indicates she gave several different years for her birth so I think her birth data is really suspect. Check out the source notes:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Adams,_Evangeline

Mark

Hi Mark,

I think you didn't read my whole post. I said, "Also I noticed a few highly known astrologers with their Mercury either in domicile/exaltation or receiving planets in its domicile/exaltation." Also I've already mentioned Robert Hand, William Lilly and Dane Rudhyar. Rob has his Mercury receiving Saturn in Gemini, while Dane has his Mercury receiving Mars in Gemini. Lilly has his Mercury receiving Mars in Virgo. Are you familiar with reception/mutual reception? Also I did mention about Evangeline having Dirty Data. An astrologer writer, researcher, teacher, prognosticator, all sound like they can be done by an experienced astrologer. Except maybe for counsellor. Right now, I'm just giving a very rough sketch of what a competent astrologer might look like, based on their chart.

By the way, Olivia has her Mercury squaring Moon in Virgo, Reinhold has Mercury receiving Mars in Virgo, also Pluto in Gemini, Sepharial has Mercury receiving Uranus in Gemini, Maurice Weymss' Mercury receiving from a square to Pluto and Neptune in Gemini, C.C. Zain has Mercury receiving Uranus in Virgo, and Copernicus' Mercury receiving a square from Saturn in Gemini. All of them have their Mercury in aspect to a planet in their domicile/exaltation. I do believe an inner planet can receive an outer planet, but not a trans-saturn planet receiving a personal planet.

As for Maurice McCann, I can't find his birth info. Bernadette Brady, well, this might sound like a stretch, but her Mercury is opposite Midheaven in Virgo. I've never read/heard about reception working with MC, but I'll hazard a guess and say that her Mercury receives MC in Virgo. ...Why not?

Keep in mind that I think, yes, you can become an astrologer no matter your birth chart. I'm just organizing them into order of competence, ranks I guess you can say, based on their Mercury. I'm just giving a very rough sketch for now. Hoping for it to be refined in the future.

BTW, for anyone interested in checking out the charts of a lot of astrologers, there is a big collection in the Astro-DataBank at Astrodienst, at www.astro.com .

By the way, I found Maurice McCann's birth info. His Mercury, at a pretty wide orb, squares Neptune in Virgo. 10? orb. Maybe there's reception happening there?

Maybe reception can happen with platick aspects(whole sign aspects)?

If reception can happen by whole sign aspects, Bernadette's Mercury receives Saturn in Virgo. But it would be an opposition with 11? orb.

I think you didn't read my whole post. I said, "Also I noticed a few highly known astrologers with their Mercury either in domicile/exaltation or receiving planets in its domicile/exaltation."

I did actually. I just decided to make a point of my own about how prominent astrologers don?t necessarily have to have a Mercury strong by essential dignity.

In general terms one cannot object to your emphasis on reception. Its obviously a quite fundamental way in which planets influence.

Are you familiar with reception/mutual reception?

You question if I really understand reception? No offence intended but I might ask you the same question. Its a question for many astrologers I think! There is lots of confusion in this area. There have been many threads devoted to that topic over the years on Skyscript.

To simplify this I use three terms. Dispositor. Here a planet disposits another planet in one of its dignities. The planet is the ruler of that sign or portion of the zodiac. There does not need to be an aspectual relationship for this to occur. Note in traditional astrology there are 5 types of dignity not just domicile and exaltation rulers.

The Skyscript dictionary sets this our clearly:

A planet which disposits, disposes of, or rules another because the other is in one of its areas of dignity. For example, when Jupiter is in Taurus, Venus, the planetary ruler of Taurus, disposits Jupiter. Planets can also be disposed by the lesser dignities, so the dispositor of Jupiter by exaltation is the Moon which is naturally exalted in Taurus.

Secondly Reception, in traditional astrology is a term reserved for when the dispositing planet receives another planet into one its dignities and this is combined with either conjunction or aspect. Traditionally the dignities involved can be either domicile or exaltation (major dignities) or at least two of the minor dignities ( triplicity, term and face).

Finally, we have Mutual reception. This is where two planets disposit each other in their respective dignities and receive each other by aspect. Again this requires an aspect. Without this we dont have mutual reception but what medieval astrologers like Ibn Ezra called a ?liberality? or ?generousity?. I think of this as a whole sign mutual dispositorship. The modern notion of mutual reception has really watered down the classical definition as there is clearly a much stronger connection with an aspectual relationship involved. Modern astrology has lost the language to distinguish between the two situations.

I use whole sign houses myself so this is clear cut for me. However, some astrologers using quadrant houses rather confuse the terminology. Hence sometimes you see the ruler of a house cusp described as the dispositor too. I think this really blurrs the clear distinction between dispositorship and reception.

Its useful to study dispositorship and reception by other dignities. Especially the terms (bounds). Mercury has an influence much further than just in Virgo and Gemini if you look at it from this perspective. Hence it is the triplicity ruler by night in all the air signs.

As you suggest in reference to Lilly's dignity system a proper delineation of astrological ability would need to extend beyond essential dignity and reception/dispositorship. We would also need to take account of other factors such as house placements, solar phase, general aspectual contacts, planetary speed etc. Traditionally, the 9th and the 3rd house and their rulers might be expected to be prominent. I have also noticed some interesting connections to the IC which has occult associations in ancient astrology. Of course the problem of analysing by house system is the variety of systems used.

Less subtley, I have noticed a high number of Sun/Moon in Virgo in the astrological community. Gemini seems to feature much less frequently.

As Waybread suggests Astrodatabank is a great resource for the natal data of astrologers. Regarding Brady, McCann, Zoller etc the interviews by Garry Phillipson here on Skyscript contain natal data for most of those interviewed.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/books.html#pp

Mark

With the reception, mutual reception, dispositors, I didn't understand reception in that way. But I don't believe it has to be that rigid, you have to be flexible and keep molding it to match with the evidence to make the theory work.

As you suggest in reference to Lilly's dignity system a proper delineation of astrological ability would need to extend beyond essential dignity and reception/dispositorship. We would also need to take account of other factors such as house placements, solar phase, general aspectual contacts, planetary speed etc. Traditionally, the 9th and the 3rd house and their rulers might be expected to be prominent. I have also noticed some interesting connections to the IC which has occult associations in ancient astrology. Of course the problem of analysing by house system is the variety of systems used.

I mentioned accidental dignity too, not just essential. But I don't understand how a complete fulfillment of the accidental dignity criteria can save a Mercury in Pisces with no term from getting lost in the details without my way of using reception? I do not believe that Lilly's scoring system is the end all be all, I think there's still some advancements to be made for adding on to it.

To be edited later on. Must get to sleep.

Mercquarian, I just spent some time toodling around 8 astrologers' charts, using the methods you recommend.

I started to think you had hit on a law of nature, until I remembered my college introductory statistics class from way-back-when.

Basically, in a simple frequency count, let alone in statistics, you have to show that a result occurs far more frequently than would occur by random chance or by the identical proportion in the non-astrological population as a whole.

To do this, you might need a control group of non-astrologers (say, truck drivers) or at least settle upon a result that would be significant, given the thousands of astrologers out there.

For example, one out of every six people will have Mercury in Virgo or Gemini. Make that one in four if we adopt the modern view of Mercury exalted in Aquarius. Then if we add additional dimensions (such as reception from a domiciled planet, if I understand you correctly) we would find a higher probability that Joe Average would qualify according to your diagnostic. At the end of the day, we might find that every third person should make a super astrologer!

Also, if someone is a professional astrologer, that should also show up in her MC, 10th or 6th houses, ruler/lord of the MC/10th house cusp, and so on. So someone might have a great-looking Mercury, yet incline towards a different profession.

I don't have the education, computer, or software to run some reasonable tests on this problem, but people who do generally do not come up with much that can be validated.

But best wishes for your quest--keep us posted!

And with Mercury in Aquarius myself, I think this is a super placement for an astrologer.

Hey waybread,

I checked through astrodatabank.com before I came here to post my thread, already checked more than half of the astrologers there. I had to bend a bit, using semi-sextiles/quincunx, out of sign aspects, stretching the orbs a bit more. I forgot to mention this. I'll try to finish it up today, or very soon.

I don't believe that a well placed Mercury would create *only* astrologers, since I've read Mercury rules mathematicians, philosophers, etc. But I do believe that truly competent astrologers will have an all-around well dignified Mercury.

I do that with different types of professions too. I formulate it like this:

X = Birth chart configuration, Y = Profession

Not every (X) is (Y), but every (Y) is/has (X).

So to make a very broad example:

Not every Libra is a model, but every model is a Libra.

Something I checked on astrodatabank too, but I still have to complete that. Only got up to letter D, the majority of them have Venus domicile/exalted or receiving so far. I'll finish this up too.

Hi mercquarian,

I have a few suggestions regarding your research:

1) Consider Morin's Book 21 chapter 5 page 62-63, translated by Richard Baldwin:

"A planet ruling one house and placed in another acts not only through the house it occupies as well as the one which it rules over, but also through any planets located in this latter house. For example, the ruler of Mercury in the first house shows good mental qualities, even though Mercury is not itself in the first house. This is because any planet has an influence on the native through both the celestial and terrestrial state of its ruler. And so if Mercury's ruler is in the first and in good celestial state, Mercury's influence will be felt in the affairs of the first house and especially on the mental qualities because of the analogy; and this would be in a favourable way because its ruler is in a good celestial state."

This is a crucuial concept which I have not encountered in any other text so far.
I would suggest checking not only whether Mercury's dispositor is in the Asc but ditto for the dispositor of the ruler of the ninth house.

2) Always consider the Almutem Figuris, its nature and zodiacal state;

3) Dr H aka Regulus Astrology in his great book in "America is Born" discusses the importance not only of Mercury but also of the Moon, when it comes to divination and insight. We have to fuse these two planets together if we want to get as full of a picture as possible. Of course it all depends on their condition and relationship in the figure.
In his other superb book "A Rectification Manual he follows Firmicus Maternus in advocating that in order to fully understand a planet's behaviour we ought to look not only at its 2 major dignities but at all 7 of them, emphasizing the term ruler as well as the dwad ruler.


Your interesting topic really prompted me to write this. In fact this is my first post in this great forum.

Good luck with your research!

Zagata