Mystery Chart 18 - posted on skyscript forums Mon Feb 16-

2009

Male
Jan 13, 1821
11:33 PM LMT
Chesterville, Maine USA
44 N 33' 04"
70 W 05' 12"
12 Libra 47 rises

Analysis by Steven B.
I think several people have touched on some rather relevant things so far in this chart. I think it was Kirk
that mentioned “restlessness and change” because of the fact that all the angles of the chart are
moveable and the planets are in either moveable or bi-corporeal signs.

This combined with a Sanguine/Choleric temperament would also in my opinion make this a person who
has great difficulty focusing on particulars for any length of time yet is quite driven to accomplish
something that in some way is humanitarian, liberal, idealistic and aimed towards in some way bettering
the human condition (very Sanguine elements). As Jane pointed out he is definitely someone who likes to
be active in participation without being too active physically. I think he would be more inclined to
persuading others to do things for him. He would tend to extremism in anything he does – when an
optimist, extremely optimistic; when a pessimist, extremely so. Whatever he does, he tends to take it to
the extremes and puts his whole heart into it. When he feels challenged and his creative intellect is
challenged then he can be indomitable, imperiously goal oriented. If he doesn’t like something, he will
probably desert it like it had the plague at whatever the cost to him or his reputation.

Because of the predominance of the heat element in his temperament, he is an initiator, an activist and is
not someone who sits and speaks in the modus of “this or that happened to me”, but rather he speaks of
opportunities and what he can do. No doubt whatever he put his hand to, had to be something in which he
could be creative and the initiative taker. There no doubt that Mars in his chart is one of several
professional indicators and he could have been in any number of professions that were “martian” in
nature. He probably could have worked as a carpenter (someone who works with cutting and sawing
instruments) but I think perhaps he would not have enjoyed any “manual” profession for long. If he was in
the military, which is a possibility, he didn’t stay there long and I think his temperament and nature would
have driven him to perhaps extreme measures to get out of something as disciplined and rigid as a
military life. Maybe the adventure of a military life appealed, but I don’t think he remained in the military for
any length of time.

When finding the profession of any one, I have found in my practice that not only is locating a professional
significator important, but it is also important to understand certain parameters which will define any
profession; temperament is one of those factors as is the mental disposition and qualities of his “soul”.
Social status and education are parameters also. If a person has a higher education and is of a higher
social status then they are more likely to find opportunities. Since I’ve already mentioned something of his
temperament I do not believe that he is inclined to sitting on a school bench for very long, nor is he
inclined to sit in some library as a scholar. I think education is important to this native, but I think he may
have gotten his education “on the street” if you know what I mean. The Lord of the 9th is Mercury and it
falls amiss and in aversion to the 9th, but its light is rendered to the 9th via its aspect to Saturn, which
also has a testimony in the 9th and is angular. Since Saturn is in its fall he receives no “honours” and
usually the lord of the 9th joined to a malefic is a good indication that his formal education is “cut off”;
probably by some real misfortune and harsh circumstances (Saturn). There is a good chance for example
that his father died while he was young and in his school age. Mars (exalted ruler of the 4th in the 4th) is
joined to the ruler of the 8th from the 4th. The Lot of the father is 28° Leo. The ancients directed this
significator to know what happens to the father. I haven’t done the math but I can generally say that it
appears that the Lot would be directed to Saturn’s aspect somewhere between the native’s ages of 8-10
years. The significators of the father are the planets in the 4th as well as the ruler of the 4th and the Lot of
the Father. Saturn of course is in a place it hates and has no honour and professionally it indicates the
common labourer so perhaps his father was a farmer and probably died of a heart attack (Mars joined to
the Sun). Anyway I would be inclined to believe that education was cut off at an early age and the native
was forced into menial labour.

I also look at the 3rd house with regards to education. I recently had a client whose education was “cut
off” because of marriage at an early age (1 but resumed her education again when she divorced after only
a few years. She had Saturn as ruler of the 3rd in its domicile, Capricorn but raised to the ascendant
because of the divisions. She did get her PhD. In this chart I find the ruler of the 3rd is Jupiter in its
domicile, Pisces. However Jupiter also falls in a house inimical to the Ascendant (the 6th). So it does
indicate knowledge but it is not a knowledge one receives institutionally and one uses in a livelihood. I
think this guy was very “street smart” and if they offered a PhD for it he probably would have had it! He
learned by experience.

When it comes to the native’s mental disposition and “qualities of the soul”, because Mercury falls in a
moveable sign and Mars is together with it (and joined to the Sun) and receives it (because Mercury is
applying to Mars) then I would say it disposes his mind into political matters and he eagerly engages
himself in public matters (very turbulently) and that he is fond of distinction. At the same time he is
ingenious, inquisitive, inventive, speculative and probably studious of both astronomy and divination
(because Mercury is carried into the 3rd by division). Mercury oriental and direct probably inclines him to
be very frank, self-confident, unreserved with an acute mind. It is very significant that Mercury and the
Moon both apply to Saturn which is Mercury’s dispositor and ultimately the Moon’s dispositor. His mental
qualities are not exactly unimpeded and not totally successful; instead his mental qualities will be obscure
and not blatantly evident; more subtle and not coming over so forceful. Because both the Almuten of
Mercury (Mars) and the ruler (Saturn) are malefics he will have an impulse to commit dastardly deeds
without reservation or restraint. I don’t think he is a “killer” but I do not doubt he “hurt” people for his own
profit and protection. He is not an “honest” guy. One description that strikes me as particular (Saturnine)
to this native is the inclination to be faint hearted and basically a coward and void of natural affections (as
Ptolemy puts it), treacherous in friendship and in family connections. With regards to Mars having
dominion then he is also imperious, irascible, versatile, and powerful in intellect, careless, obstinate,
contemptuous, and tyrannical. Mars combust also indicates a certain amount of “covert” cruelty and
morally he is predatorily inclined.

Professionally I think he tried many things. Mercury is oriental of the Sun in the same sign and in the 4th
whole sign so he may have had professions that involved law, journalism, teaching, writing, and perhaps
wasn’t too bad at mathematics and calculations. Mars is angular and as I already said he probably was at
sometime in the military or worked as a carpenter or with “sharp metal tools”. In a nocturnal chart we also
can look at that planet to which the Moon joins upon separating from the Part of Fortune. In his chart the
Moon is in the same degree as Fortune and is joined to Saturn. He probably had some professions that
were pretty menial as a common farm labourer and may have even worked on boats. But it also signifies
a strong interest in “occult” matters and “perfect and divine sciences”.

In this regards, I was recently involved in a discussion about astrologers and once again the discussion
was about trying to find a planet/sign combination that indicated astrologers. I don’t adhere to that
particular doctrine that there is one planet in one sign or degree of some sign that indicates a person is an
astrologer. In the discussion several astrologers were mentioned and their charts examined. I did find
some striking similarities. Robert Zoller for example, has Mercury in its terms in Aquarius joined to Saturn
and the ruler of the 9th (Mars) is together with Mercury.
If Neugebauer, Van Hoesen, Pingree, Kennedy and Burnett are correct, and the chart in Abu Ma'shar's
"On Solar Revolutions" is his own, then Abu Ma'shar had Mercury in Leo joined to Saturn (ruler of the 9th
and 10th) in Aquarius.

I personally have Mercury in its own terms in Scorpio applying to Saturn (ruler of the 9th) in its own terms
in Virgo. Mars is Mercury's dispositor and it is the exalted ruler of the 9th and in the 9th.

Cardan had Mercury in Libra applying (trine) to Saturn in Gemini and Saturn is the ruler of the 9th by
whole sign!

Marc Edmund Jones also has Mercury (in Scorpio) applying to Saturn (Leo) but the ruler of his 9th (the
Moon) is joined to Saturn. Because the 9th is a cardinal sign and its ruler is joined to Saturn instead, we
could almost say he tried to "change" ancient tradition. Zoller on the other hand as a fixed sign on the
cusp of his 9th and its ruler is with Mercury (they are still joined in Aquarius) and he has spent his life
trying to re-establish knowledge of the tradition in ways that were very confrontational and often filled with
contention!

The point was that there simply was no sign/planet association that could be cast into stone and say, "this
is an astrologer".

I could also include John Frawley with his Mercury in Gemini. While there is no joining and application of
Mercury to Saturn, we do find that Mercury is conjoining Saturn's dispositor Mars, and that Mercury is the
ruler of his 9th (by whole sign).

The common denominator in all of these is that Mercury and Saturn are joined/or are applying and there
is a strong association of the ruler of the 9th or 3rd with Mercury! In fact in more “modern” astrologers (like
Jones) I find the Moon often joined to Saturn.

My antennae went up when I noticed that in this chart Mercury (ruler of the 9th in the 3rd by division) is
joined to Saturn and that the Moon (ruler of the 10th in the 9th by whole sign and joined to the Lot of
Fortune) is also applying to Saturn. I am sore tempted to say this native was an astrologer! Saturn posited
occidental of the Sun would incline me to say that he was not always an astrologer but perhaps this
became an interest and profession much later in his life. In this chart too it is Saturn that renders the
Moon’s light to her domicile in the Midheaven! So Saturn (which receives Mercury) is very much the
means to his profession and “what he does”. I for one would be interested to see if these “common
denominators” hold true in this chart. I am not trying to cast these considerations into stone and say this is
the rule for every astrologer! It just strikes me that it is often true so I’m just throwing that out here!

To summarise the native’s professional life, I would have to say it was unsteady in his youth and he had
several professions and a large part of them were menial or involved a lot of hard work. As he got older I
think he perhaps settled somewhat into something that could be called a profession. Because Saturn is
involved, then I do believe he had a love for reading and books and knowledge. With Saturn probably the
Almutem Figuris of the chart then I also know that his life, was not easy and he is driven, in all that he did,
by the quest of knowledge and probably fell into the Apostle Paul’s category of “ever learning but never
able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Saturn’s essence is the principle agnoia. That doesn’t mean
ignorant, it means “not knowing”. In a place it hates it also indicates someone whose understanding is
darkened. It is this not knowing and wanting to know that is going to be underlying his thoughts and
actions. He might have actually thought he knew, but I think if the truth were told by him he would admit
that he didn’t but it is what drove him to try and know.

Now I’m taking this chart in some pretty broad strokes. Another house that is quite emphasised is the 7th
and marriage; mainly because its ruler, Mars, is angular and it contains the other malefic, Saturn. One of
the ancient’s judgements was that if the ruler of the 7th was combust then the native would never marry. I
have in fact found in the charts of clients who have this configuration that if they did marry it never lasted
long and was over pretty much as soon as it began. The Lord of the 7th is in a moveable sign and Venus
is in a bi-corporeal sign as is the Moon (the natural significator of the wife in a masculine chart). I would
say this man had multiple marriages/relationships. I don’t think all relationships were “legal”. When
malefics dominate this house, then marriage is definitely not a profitable venture for the native. But I do
think at one point he was married if not legally then at least by common law. The reason I say this is that
although the Lord of the 7th and the Moon are not joined to the ruler of the ascendant, Venus; Mercury is
ruler of the Lot of Marriage (26° Gemini) and Mercury is joined to Venus because they are by degree in
each other’s antiscia. Mercury commits its disposition to Saturn in the 7th and is received. Do I think it
was a profitable marriage? No and it was with a wife he did not find pleasure or enjoyment with. Venus
while succedent is not fortunate having just separated from her reception and peregrine. Her triplicity
rulers are either strong but unfortunate, or fortunate but weak. The nocturnal ruler is Jupiter who is
essentially strong but weak in the 6th; the Sun is angular and strong but weak in Capricorn and afflicted
joined to the nocturnal malefic. Saturn is also strong in an angle but definitely in a place it hates. The
verdict then is that he marries relatively early in life but marriage is a disaster and unprofitable or perhaps
he marries later because Venus is in an occidental quadrant, to a younger woman (because she is
oriental of the Sun); or maybe both? Because the Moon is joined to Saturn by a sextile but without
reception then he was married to a laborious woman who is feral and inflexible. Because Mercury (the
Lord of the Part of Marriage) is joined to Saturn and it does receive Mercury then he will enter marriage
with a woman who is of no use to him or profit and is full of vices.

Does he have children? As far as I can see, there is only one possible indication of perhaps one child.
The 5th is Aquarius giving few children and its ruler is in its fall but angular in a barren sign. There are no
planets indicating children in the 11th or 10th and those indicating children, like Jupiter and the Moon are
in cadent places. However one planet again stands out as a possibility, and that is Mercury (significator of
children) which is joined and received by the lord of the 5th and is joined to the lord of the Ascendant by
antiscia. Maybe one child; a Mercurial child?

Ok. This is gone longer than I intended (long winded as usual). Sorry for the length. It will probably be the
last long post for a while as tomorrow I start a new job!

Steven

Biography of the delineated

Ours is an unsavory lot. Astrologers are lumped in with fortune tellers, vagrants, swindlers, charlatans,
heretics, and screwballs in general. As bad as our collective reputation can get we rarely are associated
with pirates, barroom brawlers, deserters from the military, serial marryers, lawyers and math professors,
much less all of the above. Our mystery chart native is pretty much everything from pirates on down: Mr.
W.H. Chaney astrologer and perhaps the father (denied) of famed American novelist Jack London.

What we know of Chaney comes from his teacher and one time friend, Luke Broughton, the father of
American astrology, and from Chaney’s semi-autobiographical astrology text book Primer of Astrology
and American Urania (1890).

Chaney, by his own admission, was not a man of sterling character. He makes an interesting remark in
the beginning of his book:

“My horoscope teaches that Nature did much for me and I should have been above the average in
goodness. But losing my father at nine, without a home, without friends, imposed upon tyrannized over
and cruelly flogged, the good that was in me dwarfed and the evil so highly developed that when but
sixteen, I enjoyed the reputation of being the worst boy in the county and all predicted that I would die in
prison, or on the gallows.”

With all his planets below the horizon except the Moon, and she being in the 8th, it is difficult to see why
Chaney thought his chart was so indicative of good. His ascendant ruler Venus is cadent and square her
dispositor, Jupiter in Pisces, but Jupiter is in the 6th. There is a mutual reception with Jupiter making
Venus a bit stronger than her peregrine position might be. The other benefic, Jupiter, is powerfully placed
in Pisces, but he, too, is cadent

Chaney left home at age 16 wandering from place to place finally joining the Navy in order to learn
enough seamanship to make himself valuable as a pirate, his main ambition. Nine months on a Navy
vessel was enough. In July 1840 he deserted and headed west from Boston.

If there is a signature for self-pity is has to be in Chaney’s chart and it was activated when he wrote this
book, if not sooner:

“A refugee, a price set up on my head, every man’s hand set against me, Ishmael was a model of
gentleness in comparison.”

Chaney claimed he travelled only at night, sleeping by day. This was probably true as the military did not
look kindly upon deserters, and at best he was looking at a long prison term if captured. He ended up in
Ohio working on vessels that traversed the Great Lakes. However, broke and sick he hit bottom in late
1840. He had no money no prospects and he knew he was a wanted man.

At this point with the help of friends he went back to school beginning, he says, on his birthday Jan 13,
1841. Chaney would eventually practice law and teach advanced mathematics. In the 1860s he would
make contact with Dr. Luke Broughton and from that point on he would practice, teach and write about
astrology.

Broughton originally settled in Philadelphia, but moved to New York after Pennsylvania passed laws that
could be used against Broughton to throw him in jail. Broughton was a practicing homeopath. He rented a
hall on New York City’s Broadway where he lectured on various subjects including astrology. He claimed
Chaney came to the lecture believing astrology to be false, but was persuaded otherwise by Broughton.
Chaney became one of Broughton’s students and would be his most famous pupil, although, typical of
Chaney, there would be a falling out.

Broughton was harassed terribly during this period in New York. People would disrupt his meetings and
lectures. He was threatened with arrest and even sued by various individuals trying to get him to stop.
Broughton even claimed his mail was tampered with. In 1866 according to Broughton, Chaney went to the
local police precinct to complain about the harassment going on at the hall. Chaney was arrested and
imprisoned for 6 months. Chaney’s account is slightly different. He claims Broughton was in jail with him! I
don’t see any reason for Chaney to lie about this. Perhaps Broughton was embarrassed to admit he spent
six months in a New York City Jail.

Chaney would move on and in the early 1870s met Flora Wellman, an occultist. They became intimately
involved. It is unknown if they actually married. Chaney was no stranger to marriage, having taken the
vows no less than six times in his life. If they did, the record would have been in San Francisco, where
they settled for a while, but a fire destroyed the building containing the records of period. Chaney, by this
time was about as anti-religion as one could be. He lectured on topics like “The Bible as Fiction,” and
claimed to be pro-Negro, pro labor, pro Grange and in favor of free love.

Flora became pregnant in 1875 and on Jan 12, one day before Chaney’s birthday, she gave birth to a son
whom she named Jack. Chaney denied the child was hers claiming she had other lovers and that he was
sterile. He lived in San Francisco for a while, but forever denied the child. Once shortly before his death,
Chaney was allegedly contacted by Jack who by this time has taken his step father’s name, London. But
once again Chaney denied the paternity.

Chaney would continue his wandering promoting astrology, railing against religion, particularly
Christianity. On January 8, 1903 W.H. Chaney died. In the tradition of great astrologers everywhere, it
was claimed he predicted his own death. He was buried in Chicago. He died penniless and whoever
buried him did not pay for perpetual maintenance of the grave. After 25 years it was used again.
Contemporary admirers of Jack London would like the issue of paternity settled and have proposed DNA
testing on Chaney’s remains, if it isn’t already too late. The problem is that Illinois law required that
exhumation requests can only come from living relatives. The issue will probably never be settled,
however it is highly unlikely that anyone but Chaney was London’s biological father.

His purported granddaughter, Joan London, an historian, did extensive research on her grandfather, but
passed away before she could publish anything. Her thesis was that Chaney was not simply an itinerant,
irresponsible vagrant. In fact he was typical of his age, the era of the greatest territorial expansion (by
settlement) of the USA that produced many wanderers. That’s how those then far away areas were
settled.

Regardless of that he was a tireless promoter of astrology, and a proponent of the use of primary
directions, a predictive system losing favor due to its complexity and mathematical rigor. Broughton taught
in New York until he died. Chaney was Broughton’s Johnny Appleseed, taking astrology with him
wherever he went and leaving some of the subject behind. Broughton had other famous pupils: Catherine
Thompson and John Hazelrigg among them. They in turn would teach people like Evangeline Adams and
Llewellyn George as well as other contributors to American astrology. But none of them spread the gospel
as far as Chaney and perhaps none, with the possible exception of Broughton himself, were as
passionate about the subject. Whatever his faults, and I’m sure they were many, all of us owe him a little
bit.

Tom

Mystery Chart 17 - posted on skyscript forums Mon Dec 15-

2008

Male
Sept 6, 1888
7:06 AM EST
Boston, MA
5 Libra 02 rises

Analysis by Steven B.
For me, one thing that is very predominant in this chart is the matter of finances.

First, Fortune is angular in the Ascendant which indicates a very fortunate livelihood. While the ruler of
Fortune (Venus) falls cadent of Libra, the exalted ruler (Saturn) is very powerful and indicates a very high
status with regards to finance because it is in the 11th from fortune which is the house of acquisition.
Saturn is a diurnal planet in a diurnal chart and is oriental and in its greatest strength (relative to the Sun)
and in a very fortunate place in the chart (the 11th) and has a considerable testimony in its place (triplicity
and terms). Saturn rules the 4th and the 5th. It does not see the 4th but it does the 5th and indicates
investment returns and sudden windfalls and good fortune. The 5th could also be construed as the
perhaps investment in entertainment.

I don't know that the chart indicates the subject was necessarily involved in politics, (I don't think so) but
he was involved with politicians and was a friend and "2nd" to politicians and men of political power. His
fortune was significantly tied to politics and political decisions.

I wonder a little about both Venus and Jupiter in this chart. A majority of authors from the past tell us that
when a planet was in the last degree of a sign that it's "power was removed" already into the next. We
have no examples of just what they meant by that and they also say that a planet in the first degrees of a
sign is not quite "fixed" in that sign yet. Potentially it could mean that they saw Venus and Jupiter already
in their domiciles (Libra and Sagittarius respectively) but perhaps not yet fixed and showing a future
potential that is very great.

Ultimately I think this native amassed a rather large fortune at an early age (Saturn is oriental of the Sun
and Mars is occidental of the Moon) but the full scope of his wealth was not attained until much later and
perhaps became his legacy and what he was best known for and what he left to his children after he died.

I think the native was very well educated (ruler of the 9th in its other domicile and joined to the ruler of the
1st) and his education was significant to his acquiting his wealth which probably means he recieved a
degree in economics and business (Mercury ruler). It is also clear (at least to me) he did not come from a
well established family ande his chart indicates social mobility moving from a lower status to a higher
status and may well have been resented and even hated for that. Both the Sun and the Moon are in the
12th which would very much indicate that the parents were not of noble birth, but were used to hardship
and suffering. His father most definitely was a hard worker (signified by Saturn) and probably was good at
what he did although he probably hated what he did.

Secondly the ruler of the 2nd is in the 2nd and it is a nocturnal planet in its proper light (under the horizon
in a diurnal chart) and proper sign and quadrant. It is not of the chart sect but it is as strong "in its sect" as
it can be. It is also a superior planet which confers its virtue upon the other diurnal planet in the 2nd,
Jupiter. For me this indicates a man who acquires riches by the sheer shrewdness (Mercury applying to
Mars) of his actions.

What is very predominant is the superior planets in this chart and their predominance indicates the
durablility of the matters they indicate.

That's all I have time for right now. Perhaps I can get back to this later.

Steven

Biography of the delineated

“How many votes do you need to win? I’m not paying for a landslide.” Thus spoke our mystery native,
Joseph P. Kennedy, financier, movie mogul, social climber, and first head of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, to his son Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy. JFK, for those too young to recall, won
election to the Presidency by a whisker defeating then Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Joseph P. got his
money’s worth. Unfortunately for him, in December of 1961 he would be paralyzed and unable to speak
after suffering a stroke. He would outlive two of his three remaining sons, his oldest son having died in
WWII.

Kennedy’s reputation since WWII hasn’t been exactly what we would wish for ourselves. He’s been called
a bootlegger so often and for so long it is accepted as gospel and yet there isn’t any evidence that he
ever earned a dime from illegal liquor. He did have several legal liquor distributorships during and after
the prohibition era, but that doesn’t equal bootlegging. He was, perhaps, a ruthless businessman, but he
is hardly unique in that respect. Bill Gates is a ruthless businessman. So is Steve Jobs.

What drove him more than anything was social climbing. He was never accepted by Boston society. His
father was a saloon keeper. His grandfather immigrated to the US from Ireland dirt poor. He did not
descend from passengers on the Mayflower, and worst of all, he was Catholic. None of this sat well with
old money Boston types, and it galled him. He matriculated into Harvard, a Protestant bastion. He
became a bank president at the age of 25. He wanted to be a millionaire by the time he was thirty. He
made it, and was still not accepted. He made money in the stock market in ways that were then legal and
today are not. Many of them are illegal because he made them so when he was head of the SEC.
We can’t change history, but we can affect the future. What better way to join and even surpass Boston
Society than gain the White House? Some say he wanted that job himself. I doubt that, although the idea
may have crossed his mind. He never ran for or held a public office until FDR was elected in 1932. He did
want to be Secretary of the Treasury, but Roosevelt put the fox in charge of the hen house by making him
the head of the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission. Prior to that, when he was allegedly
making money with illegal liquor he was making a fortune in the movies. After the SEC his public life
peaked when he was made the Ambassador to the Court of St. James, the first Catholic to be so
appointed.

He was grooming his oldest son Joseph for a run at the Presidency as war clouds gathered over Europe.
He may have felt friendly towards Hitler, and if so, he was not the only American to find good in the
German dictator. Charles Lindbergh was a Hitler supporter as was the NY Times. But Kennedy took it
farther when he was quoted as saying democracy was dead in Europe and probably in the US as well. He
also put in writing some nasty anti Semitic remarks. He was friendly with and business partners with
Jewish businessmen at different times, but his distaste for the race was obvious as was his defeatist
attitude. He was recalled by Roosevelt after the Battle of Britain.

Richard Whalen, a biographer suggested Kennedy’s “pacifism” grew out of his fear that the US would
become involved in a war and in order to be elected President, the candidate would have to have served
in the military and that in turn meant the risk of death. This is precisely what happened to Joe junior.

His considerable fortune and his efforts then went to Jack, who also served in WWII and served
heroically. Rumors persist that JFK’s Pulitzer Prize was bought and paid for by his father, as were his
races for the House, Senate, and Presidency. His goal achieved, but his acceptance by Boston probably
never came. His wife Rose was once quoted as saying, I believe after JFK’s election, “When will you
accept us?” He couldn’t get his ancestors on the Mayflower retroactively, and he never gave up his
Catholicism. Joseph P. Kennedy died in 1969 after three of his four sons predeceased him.

Kennedy was never a politician seeking the spotlight. I think his 12th house can be understood in this
light. He was famous and powerful, but it was mostly a “behind the scenes” career. The rulers of the first
and 10th houses are in the 12th. None of the so-called “Royal” stars are prominent. This does not appear
to be the chart of a “king,” whether elected or inherited. Mars in the 2nd often indicates the native
squanders his wealth. Jupiter protects him, and there was an awful lot of wealth to squander. In 1957 his
personal fortune was estimated at $200 – 400 million.

The question I have is does this or any chart reflect the reality or the reputation? Kennedy’s reputation as
a crooked businessman (Americans are taught there is no other kind) is probably exaggerated. It is true
as noted above that some of his practices are no longer legal, and we would consider them unethical, it is
also true that Kennedy was swimming with sharks. He wasn’t the city slicker taking advantage of the
rubes. They were trying to do the same things to him. Biographies are less than flattering. Whalen’s The
Founding Father portrays him as an obsessed social climber. The titles of other books give away the
authors’ biases Joseph P. Kennedy: The Mogul, The Mob, The Statesman and the Making of an American
Myth; and The Sins of the Father. None of the books are too flattering, but with the possible exception of
some of Whalen’s biography none are too concerned with legitimate scholarship either. When I see a
book written by an “investigative journalist” the first words that pop into my mind are, “hit piece.” I’m
usually right.

I doubt he was a nice guy, but wildly successful people rarely are. “Nice guys finish last” has more truth in
it than most clichés. He was tough – very tough. He played in a tough league. He may have driven his
daughter Rosemary to a serious depression. He drove his children as he realized being driven is how
people get to the highest levels. But was he Satan incarnate? Probably not, and I don’t think the chart
reflects that either. But he did behave badly at times. His part of spirit is at 1 Libra ruled by Venus in 12 in
her fall. Spirit is not the highlight of his life.

His legacy is, at best mixed. He did create one of America’s most powerful political families, but they’ve
accomplished little with that power. Jack’s Presidency was cut short, but what there was of it, was
mediocre. Bobby talked a good game of civil rights, but his record as Attorney General in this area is
virtually non-existent. Ted was his own undoing. Joseph P’s grandsons haven’t been too impressive either
with JFK jr perhaps the best of the lot, but he never showed an interest in politics, and he, too lost his life
too young. His granddaughter is widely perceived, as of this writing, as the favorite to be appointed to the
US Senate to replace the seat left by Hillary Clinton. Her qualifications are her maiden name. And no one
will even consider her grandfather one way or the other, yet he is the one, for better or for worse who is
most responsible for her being taken seriously.

He endured a great deal of personal suffering during his life. He authorized a disastrous lobotomy for his
daughter Rosemary. His eldest son was killed during WWII. Two of his three remaining sons would be
murdered. He lived for almost 8 years partly paralyzed and unable to speak. It is not the way we would
want our lives to turn out. He answered grievously for his ambitions.

Further analysis on chart 17

Hi Jane,

Long time no "see" Glad to see your still going strong and hope you had a fine Christmas.

I just needed to jump in here to make a couple of comments for whatever they're worth. Being very
familiar with Valen's teachings concerning Fortune, the Fortune chart and his teaching concerning
Zodiacal Releasing I wanted to clarify something.

First of all the 11th from Fortune was not the "place of achievment" as you wrote.

Quote:
«21. Concerning the Place of Fortune in Relation to Happiness

We have also found the 11th place from Fortune to be an acquisitive place, a bestower of belongings and
goods;

And this is what he cals it throughout the chapters on the Lot of Fortune, the place of acquisition. At no
time and no place does Valens call the 11th from Fortune, the place of achievment. In fact this was the
sovereign place of the Midheaven of Fortune or the 10th from Fortune.

Quote:
In another manner, when you have come to know the place allotted for Fortune, also consider the squares
to it and the remaining figures to be, as it were, upon the genethlialogical pivot points. That is, the lot itself
possesses the power of the Hõroskopos, that of life; the tenth zôidion from this, the power of the
Midheaven, that of reputation;

Generally speaking, when Saturn or Mars was in the Midheaven of Fortune or in the post-ascension of
the Midheaven (the 10th or 11th from Fortune) then Valens does tell us that it was an indication of
financial loss or the loss of reputation and honours and achievment. However, he also specifically
qualifies that by saying;

Quote:
Kronos, when it is suitably figured, appoints the lords of foundations and possessions;

The question is what does Valens mean by "suitably figured". There were several things determining this
suitability. I am only going to list them here rather than dig out all of the quotes, but you can read Valens
and find out very easily.

1) whether or not the planet was placed in a profitable and good house of the radix. Now Saturn is in the
11th of the nativity and Valens says this concerning the house of "Good Spirit":

Quote:
if the malefics should be present with the Good Spirit, they will not have the power to do anything evil.
And this is all the more necessary if the ruler of the Lot and of the Hõroskopos and of the Spirit should
happen to be rising, or most of the stars are present with them as well or bear witness to them in
advantageous zoidia; for they produce those who are esteemed and wealthy above reason.

In the case of this nativity, Saturn is in the house of Good Spirit and it is the exalted ruler of Fortune and
Spirit, not just any malefic. It is particularly determined to Fortune and in a most suitable place in the
chart.

2) The planet produced much more when it was suitably placed in sect. Again Valens says,

Quote:
Kronos...when unsuitably (placed) or out of sect, it produces losses, seizures, shipwrecks, poverties,
debts.

Saturn is a diurnal planet in a diurnal chart, above the horizon in a masculine quadrant and sign! Saturn is
what the Arabs called in "hayziz". it is powerful in sect.

3) A superior planet oriental of the Sun.

Quote:
All those who have the lord of the Fortune and of the Spirit oriental and in their own places .... will become
estimable and notable and ones who dwell close to kings or priests, and they will be deemed worthy of
gifts and reputation.

Saturn is oriental waxing in its strength.

4) A planet is suitably placed when in its own degrees or domicile.

Quote:
If the lord of the Fortune or the lord of Acquisition should not happen to be in their own houses or
exaltations or trigons or degrees while being upon a pivot point or direct, they will reduce the nativity

Saturn is both in its own triplicity and its own degrees (terms). The terms in particular were a very
powerful place for a planet to be. In fact, the early Hellenistic astrologers often make the comment that to
be in its own terms was like being in its own domicile. There are modern circumstances which may be
suitable to demonstrate just what they meant. The terms, even in a place that was the detriment of a
planet, were "safe havens" if you will. In Irag right now there is an area called the "green zone". The US
has supreme authority in this "zone" placed in the midst of a hostile country. It is a place where the US
excercises not only control but US law! It is a sovereign place. Now being placed in a "domicile" that is
hostile and its dejection does make it more difficult for the US to exercise their authority. But they do and
in many ways have done good because of their presence. Now I'm just using this as an analogy. It is how,
I believe, these ancients saw these terms, even in a place that was the detriment to the planet and why
they said it was as if they were in their own domiciles. The practice of setting up seats of authority inside
hostile lands and conquered lands is as old as warfare! And these seats of authority were places of
sovereignity and dignity to the conquerors even if they did not receive "honour" from the natives of that
place.

Quite simply, and in my opinion, Saturn fulfills all of Valens requirements as being "suitably placed".
Anytime a malefic is determined as significator there is going to be problems with that authority. If you
consider the Firdar periods when Kennedy was in fact at the "height" of his wealth and power it was
during his Saturn Firdar! That is when he was appointed chairman of the SEC and his influence and
wealth was used to support FDR and the New Deal. Saturn is no benefic but it has the authority and
power to establish wealth and riches. He was obsessed with establishing himself as a powerbroker of
wealth.

I know what Robert teaches, I passed my exams with him. But I've learned also that when riches are
determined in the nativity, as they are with the ruler of the 2nd in the 2nd and joined to a benefic, then
those things can be either increased or decreased by the testimony of Fortune. I have done natitivies of
clients who have the ruler of the 2nd in the 2nd and they by no means have the kind of wealth Kennedy
amassed. They've done well for themselves yes, but what differentiates these charts for Kennedy's is how
Fortune is situated with regards to these matters.

Abu Ali wrote;

Quote:
When the Part of Fortune is in the first house, it signifies the greatest good fortune in acquiring wealth,
and a prosperous outcome in all business deals and contracts, games, and all other things for which
resources are commonly or can be provided.

Of course there are several qualifications like whether or not the ruler of the lot is operative or inorperative
etc. But when the lot is placed in the Ascendant and all the other criteria are co-present, then this is just
what it signifies.

And lastly, one must also recognise that Saturn is in the 10th from Mars and Jupiter and is superior and in
a place of authority over them and what they signify is dominated by Saturn!

Valens was no idiot when it came to these matters for he admonishes the readers in his chapters
concerning the Lots,

Quote:
«Wishing to decide the matter of happiness more clearly, we will make it more explicit by means of many
and fully examined choices. For, each kind of figure-description is powerful individually, but judging the
one together with the other, either it exalted the reputation if it was benefited, or else it ruined it even
further if it was afflicted.»

And he then instructs,

Quote:
«It is necessary, then, to compare the actions and the general support, whether the nativity is notable or
mediocre, or else happy or poor, or in dispute or irregular…»

Valens clearly admonishes the astrologer to compare “the actions”, the promise of the Lot of Fortune or
Spirit, to the “general support”, i.e. the basic or general delineation of the nativity.

Abu Ma’shar also makes these distinctions in his discussion of the Part of Fortune. He says,

Quote:
«For, when [the Lot] is well disposed, in its condition and its place; it signifies the greatest fortunes
abound, authority, attainment and those things which are well-known, precious and rare. But these things
serve some men more than others because of their own conditions that exceed the conditions of the
others, and these are those who have, in their own nativity, the luminaries and the lot of Fortune in
optimal and profitable places.»

Abu Ma’shar is simply saying that we sometimes find the condition of some people far superior to other
people. Some, more than others, appear to have success that is far more obvious. And the reason for this
is that the Part of Fortune, also well posited, serves better the parts that make up the whole. Ultimately,
the chart can produce no more than the sum of its parts!

In the Introduction to his course Robert makes this statement:

Quote:
The serious student should not confine him or herself to the course materials alone...Research and
learning in this field is ever constant and we have not yet reached a plateau...

And in a like manner he also states there,

Quote:
All of these works taken together (i.e. all of the western astrological works between 200 B.C and 1700
AD) give us the comprehensive insight that we need to synthesise and to fully understand predictive
astrology.

What Robert gave us in his course is the basics to this learning but hardly the full and complete counsel.
So while I have firmly established these basics I do not believe they are the end of the matters. Many new
and exciting techniques are being uncovered and tested after millenia of being buried. Zodiacal Releasing
is just one of them. But the whole teaching concerning the Lots of the Luminaries is another in itself and I
know Schmidt recently held an intensive on them, Dorian Greenbaum is working on a new book about
them and I myself have been preparing a book on the subject.

What I am trying to say, is that it is perhaps unwise at this stage of the game to discount some of these
things and hold too tight to other things. I agree very much with Robert that in order to have a
comprehensive insight and synthesis of these matters then we have to have a complete and
comprehensive insight of the material and as his student I have heeded his admonition to not limit myself
with just the basics in his course. Those basics are invaluable but certainly by no means the end.

Best wishes,
Steven

Mystery Chart 16 - posted on skyscript forums Sun Mar 16-

2008

Female
Feb 22, 1942
11:15 AM BST - 1 hour
London, England
6 Gemini 42 rises
Analysis by Steven B.
Hi Tom and all,

I am having some well deserved vacation time so for once I actually have the time to study this chart. You
always seem to find some interesting charts for us to study and delineate. You wrote,

«Older types, like me, will recall her as a household name.»

Intriguing, but can’t for the life of me even imagine who this is.

First some broad strokes; the first triplicity ruler of the ascendant is Saturn in the 12th in conjunction with
the other malefic Mars indicates a pretty rough childhood filled with the threat of abuse. Mercury is the
nocturnal ruler indicating the 2nd third of life is when she gains her notoriety and since Mercury is angular,
joined to Jupiter, then I’d say she didn’t suffer physically in this period but probably had a life of some
consistence and luxury because of what she does. Jupiter is the last triplicity ruler and Jupiter is always
Jupiter and has a testimony in the sign of the ascendant, though the last third of her life may be
somewhat full of regrets and loneliness (Jupiter is also in its detriment).

As Yuzuru pointed out she has a sanguine temperament making her lean towards liberality, artistic
endeavours, and creativeness. Probably a person interested in any profession that requires a ‘hands-on’
physical participation or physical exertion. Because Jupiter is in the ascendant then she is probably
optimistic tending to exaggerate yet somewhat hypocritical taking liberties and probably does not observe
normal boundaries. Because of the mutable sign on the cusp of the ascendant, Venus will impose her
qualities to her temperament; e.g. lover of beauty, harmony, loves games and play, joyful, sensual, an
entertainer.

Her ascendant and its ruler describe a very beautiful woman. Both are in the influence of both benefics. I
picture her possessing a lean ‘masculine’ frame, a mercurial body that is wiry (in a feminine sense we
might rather say ‘supple’). I don’t mean she has a man’s body quite like that, but rather has physical
features that are predominantly masculine, such as long arms and legs, a long waist, narrow hips and
square shoulders; probably not overly ‘busty’. Your typical fashion model today! Venus conjoined to the
ruler of the ascendant makes these features quite soft and curvy. Her face is probably in a triangular form,
wide at the eyes and tapering to a softly pointed chin. She will have a high pronounced forehead well
exposed from the eyebrows to the hairline. A mutable sign on the cusp of the ascendant is more easily
influenced by any planets aspecting it. Venus’ trine aspect is co-present with the cusp and so she is
anything but masculine, but the masculine features will be very Venusian – a trim Rubenesque woman!
Definitely a woman who could turn heads!

With Mercury and Venus in the 10th she probably dances and with the physique I picture she has, then,
she might be involved in modelling as well; graceful, charming, alluring and a bit impudent and playful.
But what ‘she does’ I will come back to because we need to see all the pieces of the puzzle and then put
them together – I’m finding all the corners of the picture now <g>. A Nativity is a composite of many
elements.

Since the native was raised in the 50’s England, I think perhaps it is necessary to see if the woman
married and had a family.

The very first thing that stands out is that the lord of the ascendant is joined with the lord of the 7th. Most
would answer a resounding yes, she married. I’ve been burnt on a couple of my delineations of my clients
in the past, so I’ve learned to look closely at the significators, the signs they are posited in and their rulers.
Bonatti makes a rather typical statement when he writes,

Quote:
«… if they (especially the lord of the 7th or the al-muthazz over it) were joined to the lord of the ascendant
of the nativity or its al-muthazz … and the lord of the 7th is lighter than the lord of the Ascendant, it
signifies that the native will be married …»

There are however certain qualifiers Bonatti mentions here. The most important is that the lord of the 7th
is the lighter planet obviously applying to the lord of the ascendant. If the situation was reversed and the
lord of the 7th was the slower and heavier planet with the lord of the Ascendant the lighter applying to it,
then he states;

Quote:
«But if the lord of the ascendant were joined to the lord of the 7th, so that he is lighter than him, it signifies
the native is going to be desirous of copulating…»

There are some very special particulars with delineating marriage for this woman. I can mention a few of
them;

Valens’s tells us that when Venus has ‘dealings’ with another planet in a bicorporeal sign (especially in
this case Venus’ aspect to the lord of the 7th Jupiter in Gemini – by the way I need to mention that
Mercury and Venus are in their second station and in only hours both go direct!) it makes those who are
polygamous and promiscuous, and especially if Mercury should happen to be together with Venus and
even more so if Mars should bear witness to it!

Bonatti adds that if Venus is in Aquarius and Saturn in Taurus (therein mutual reception) and/or Mercury
and Venus were conjoined in Aquarius it signified “the filthiness” of the native’s sexual intercourse and
adultery. I am thinking that Bonatti did not mean filthy as in literally dirty, but the more conservative
Catholic view of shameful and sinfully promiscuous. Both of these conditions exist though which gives me
three quite strong testimonies that this woman certainly participated in sexual unions.

When I look to the Part of Marriage I find it in 23° Virgo. Two things stand out in this placement, Mercury
is the ruler and Virgo is a barren sign. Given the above significance of Mercury and Venus together in
Aquarius and Mercury falling in aversion to Virgo, I am more inclined to say that marriage is something
that does not happen.

Yet we are told to look to the Sun for significations of marriage in a woman’s chart and the Sun is joined to
Jupiter. I’m not quite sure what to think. <g>

It allows for several possibilities: 1) the woman married but was unfaithful and her unfaithfulness brought
some kind of ‘public’ embarrassment to her husband, or 2) She never married but was some kind of well
known ‘Madam’ or ‘Call girl’ or 3) perhaps she never married but lived with someone of influence in high
places (Jupiter is also ruler of the 11th) who was quite a bit older than her (Jupiter is occidental of the Sun
and meant that she either married in her old age or married someone quite a bit older than herself).

I should also explain that I do think some kind of scandal was involved because the lord of the 10th and
dispositor of both Mercury and Venus is in the 12th joined to Mars the ruler of the 12th. This scandal
probably was disastrous both for herself and whoever the poor victim was, although if it wasn’t a husband,
I doubt whoever it was can be called a ‘victim’ in a union of this sort. It takes two to tango! In fact both
malefics in the 12th could possibly be indicating imprisonment. But Taurus and the planets in it have
another signification as it is the 10th from the Part of Fortune which was a significant house with regards
to reputation. Both malefics there speak very loudly of dishonour and infamy rather than a reputation for
something glorious. Because the Moon is also there, which is the lady of the Lot of Exaltation, then as you
already mentioned this native achieves recognition far beyond local country borders.

When I consider if she had children, again I’m not sure what to make of it. While the sign on the 5th is a
barren sign, the ruler is joined together with two planets that indicate children, Venus and Jupiter –
especially when they are in the strongest angles of the chart, the first and 10th! So I am very inclined to
say she had children. Because Jupiter is in a barren sign I don’t think he indicates more than one. Venus
is in a semi-prolific sign and could indicate maybe two.

Now these musings could be just that, musings! Although over time I have learned to trust what I see in
the testimonies of the chart, I still worry that I might be allowing my imagination to run a bit loose. I can’t
for the life of me think of anyone or any event in England that might lend credence to this delineation.
Especially since you say this native was a household name at one time.

I’ve got to give my brain a rest. I’ve been looking at this chart all day making notes.

Steven

Further analysis

Hi Tom,

Concerning the thirds of life: I use in a general sense the years that the ancients say were an average, i.e.
75 years. When I was eyeballing the chart I more or less decided that that age probably wasn't so far from
the truth. The Sun is in the 10th whole sign and the 10th by division and therefore probably the Hyleg
since it is joined with its ruler, Jupiter. This would make Jupiter the Alchocoden and in an angle in a sign
where it has testimony it would give its great years of 72. It is also aspected by the benefic Venus who
would add her lesser years of 8. So I believe it would be safe to say she will live at least that long unless
the directed hyleg should be 'cut' by a killing planet.

At the same time as I use a very general third, I keep in mind the ancients considerations of the planets
'ages' or what was called the ages of man. The Moon starts from birth to 4 years, then Mercury, then
Venus until the age of 22 when the Sun begins and the time when most men/women labour for
recognition and success until Mars takes over at 42 and it is the time when there are contentions and
'battles'. But as you said I generally try to keep the thirds within a context of childhood, adulthood, and old
age. So for me the first third is the age of childhood until the native steps out on his own, usually around
19-22 very roughly. I don't have any set rule on this.

Thank you for sharing that she did marry twice. That would agree with the ancients assertion that the lord
of the 7th in a mutable sign means the native will marry twice <g>. At the same time I have been
becoming aware that when there is a strong aspect in the nativity (such as the partile aspect of Mercury
and Jupiter) it is indicative that all of its significations will come to pass throughout the natives life. It's sort
of like filling a glass with water, a full glass is the completion, but as it is being filled, at each level is an
accomplishment of some filling of the whole. So it is I think with strong aspects in a chart, one can watch
the 'fulfillment' process in all of the significations of that aspect. It is something consistent throughout the
native's life.

I'm going through my notes and next time I post I am going to talk about the native's choices, motivations
etc. Not from a modern psychological point of view but perhaps more from the referance point of the
ancients in speaking of the natives 'dæmon' (spirit) and soul etc.

Steven

Further analysis

Hi all,

I wanted to get back to this native but approach her chart from another perspective. Medieval astrology
and astrologers in general are very often accused of being indifferent to what makes people tic! In today’s
jargon that means we are indifferent to psychology for that is the modern materialistic approach to
understanding what makes people act, choose and make decisions governing and motivating their
actions.

Before I discuss this native’s ‘motivation’ I have to explain just what I’m basing my judgments on. I will first
invite people to read an article written by Ben Dykes. I believe it is here in the archives of this web site if
I’m not mistaken and I’m sure he has it on his own web site. It’s called “Happiness in Medieval Astrology”
and Ben does an excellent job presenting the medieval view of things so I am not going to spend time
repeating it. Not only Medieval astrology, but also the Hellenistic astrology was anything but indifferent to
understanding what motivates a person. So besides the techniques that Ben lists in his excellent paper, I
also include the two lots of the luminaries. As Valens tells us in his Anthology,

Quote:
«Whence the Lot of Fortune and the Spirit will have much power over the imposing and turning back of
actions. For, the one [Fortune] shows matters concerning the body and handicrafts, the Spirit and its ruler,
matters concerning the soul and the intellect, and actions through discourse and through giving and
receiving. It will be necessary, then, to consider in what kind of zoidia [sign] the places [topical houses]
and their rulers are, and to combine the natures of these zoidia for the determination of action and
fortune, and for the kind of action.»

I must point out that Valens instructions for delineating the actions of the native are very much the same
as the instructions Ben lays out for determining primary motivation – we are to consider the nature of the
sign these lots are in; e.g. masculine, feminine, fixed, and moveable or bicorporeal, and the elemental
nature, air, earth, fire, water etc. Then we are to also consider the rulers and the signs and places
(houses) they are in to know the determination of the natives actions and what kind they will be.

Valens also tells us that,

Quote:
«Actions, then, are always taken especially from [the lot of] Spirit and its ruler. For there are some who
have bodily actions such as working with their hands and bodily afflictions as a result of bearing burdens
or exercise, and others [who have actions] from speech and knowledge and actualisations of the soul.»

These are the instructions that are the basis of the work being done using Aphesis starting from the Lot of
Spirit, which is a time lord method. I have not read all of what is being taught on this method but I do know
that Valens instructions are not without qualifications. He says we should always use the Part of Spirit,
however in the very next line of these instructions he makes his first qualification;

Quote:
«Wherever more stars should incline, whether to the lot [of Fortune] or to [the lot of] Spirit, [from] thence
will be indicated the matter of action.»

In other words we should use that Lot which has the most planets testifying to it or as I believe he meant,
applying (inclining) to it. But he doesn’t stop with his qualifications there, for just a little further on he says,

Quote:
«Often, then, when the Lot of Fortune or its lord falls amiss, the Lot of Spirit divides both bodily matters
and those that pertain to action. Similarly also, Fortune will divide both [bodily matters and actions] when
the Lot of Spirit or its lord falls amiss.»

Now what Valens means by “falling amiss” is that the Lots themselves or their lords might fall in a very
bad and unprofitable house such as the 12th or 6th houses;

Quote:
«If the lot and its lord are thus, in the sixth or twelfth, or the malefics aspect [them] or [they are] under the
rays of the Sun, then they have no power and no efficacy.»

or they might fall in a noxious and cadent house, in which case:

Quote:
«Before all . . . to see in which part of the cosmos it [the Lot of Fortune] fell out, whether upon the pivot
points [the angles] or upon the post-ascensions [succedent] or upon the declines [cadent houses];
likewise seek its ruler [if it is angular, succedent or cadent]… if it [the Lot] should mark the hour by day [be
in the ascendant] or should happen to be upon the other profitable zoidia [the other cardines]… it will
make the offspring brilliant, notable, and fortunate [Angular produces a 100% effect]… If the Lot should
happen to be upon the post-ascensions, more towards the average, [succedent houses produce average
results]. But if upon the declines, let him be considered abandoned and un-reared [cadent next to nothing
or harmful].»

The last means of “falling amiss” is if the lords happen to fall in a sign where they do not see the sign the
Lot falls in. In other words there is no aspect between the signs and the ruler falls in aversion.

Now these are foundation rules, but as is always the case there are mitigating exceptions <g>. For
example the lot may fall in an unprofitable house but a benefic (like the chart luminary) might aspect it
from an angle which would raise it from its obscurity. Or perhaps the ruler falls in aversion but is applying
to a planet that does apply to Lot etc. But these are generally the rules in determining what motivates
(imposes or hinders) a person’s actions in life and sometimes we may find both lots to be significant.

Enough said, on to delineation!

This woman has Gemini on the ascendant. Because it is a masculine sign, it speaks of desire rather than
need. She will never be found to speak of things happening to her, but rather of what she did herself. To
be personally happy, she will actively seek freedom to move, think and act in an “airy” way; i.e. using
speech, writing, ideas, and interactions. Her personal happiness is also going to depend on certain ways
(behaviour) she seeks this freedom of expression because the cusp of the ascendant falls within the
influence of Jupiter in the Ascendant and Venus’ aspect to the cusp. So she will use Jovian and Venusian
ways as much as the “airy” ways. Her motivation will also be to take liberties ignoring normal social
boundaries in as peaceful, joyful, sensual, and fun loving a way as possible.

Where she seeks this freedom and is most successful at it can be seen in the positions of the rulers of the
Ascendant. Mercury is the domicile ruler and in the 10th (9th whole sign). She will seek fulfilment in “what
she does” professionally and reputation and she will do this using relationships (Mercury aspecting Jupiter
ruler of the 7th) as well as people over whom she exercises authority (perhaps even sexual authority
since Mercury is also joined to Venus ruler of the 6th). Because Mercury is in a cardine, un-afflicted by
malefics and literally besieged by benefics, free of the Sun and oriental, I would have to say she is
reasonably successful at finding her personal happiness in her work and reputation.

Jupiter is co-Almuten of the ascendant since the ascendant falls in no less than 3 of Jupiter’s testimonies;
triplicity, terms and decan. Jupiter is in the Ascendant so she will as equally seek happiness in her own
personal “self-esteem”, otherwise simply put, in herself! Jupiter himself is of the sect of the chart (diurnal),
in two of its testimonies (triplicity and terms), direct in motion, in the Ascendant, free from the malefics and
joined not only to the ruler of the ascendant but also the chart luminary and sect lord, the Sun! So this girl
is quite happy with herself! She may not be perfectly content with herself since Jupiter is in its detriment.
She may well feel that she has the authority (Jupiter is in its triplicity and terms) but lacks the honour and
dignity she believes and expects she should have. Any lack in contentment can be a great motivator!

What we have is a woman, born and raised in the 40’s and 50’s with a very potent drive and desire to
make a mark both professionally and of herself! There were not a whole lot of options for a woman with
these characteristics and personality in those days! The most notable women did so through some
personal achievement socially acceptable or they did so more discreetly outside of social norms! I tend to
think this women falls in the latter category!

When I consider her actions I find that both Fortune and Spirit fall in angular houses! Now Valens tells us
that women (at least of his day) tended towards the actions of Fortune, that is purely physical actions that
have their meaning to the native’s physical well being alone, rather than Spirit which he says Men most
often are more governed by. This particular consideration I feel today is hardly valid, since we find that
women today are just as likely to have actions that are dominated by their choices, decisions, speech and
actualisations of their soul as men are! Prior to the 1900’s this might still have been rather true. The
1900’s though brought several transitions as the universal “religion” of our times (democracy and
humanism) came to fruition! We always need to remember that nativities are always subject to universals!

Fortune is in Leo and her “fortunes” and actions concerned with her well being are going to be of that
nature! Leo is also a masculine sign so her fortune is also not the result of ‘need’ but of desire. Because
of its fixed nature it means her fortune is acquisitive – and the actions imposed or hindered are going to
desire to acquire recognition and power; things which are solar in nature. The Sun is in Pisces in the 10th
by whole sign and division. Fortunes’ actions will be successfully imposed or hindered through her
reputation and profession. Now the Sun does fall in aversion to Fortune (Pisces is the 8th from Fortune)
but it still is able to testify to the natives Fortune because it is joined to its sect mate, Jupiter in the
Ascendant, which does behold Leo and testifies to Fortune! So I would say the native is successful in her
health and physical actions that bring her material fortune. I might add that Jupiter is in the 11th from
Fortune which is the house of acquisition of material wealth. However, I think her fortunes are also quite
unfortunate and hindered. The only planet joining Fortune and whose aspect is co-present with Fortune is
the Moon. Even though the Moon is itself in its exaltation and triplicity, I believe that what she portends is
not so good for the native’s fortunes; for she herself is out of sect in the 12th (an unprofitable sign) by
whole sign and division and she is separating from Mars/Saturn (ruler of the 12th) and joined to Fortune!
Because the Moon is in the 10th from Fortune and is the planet by nature that is responsible for the
generation and corruption of all things, then her joining Fortune indicates that success and reputation,
while promised, is unprofitable by virtue of the natal 12th, transitory, and there will always be fluctuations;
the waxing and waning of success, recognition and reputation; and these fluctuations will tend to revive
things remembered as detrimental to the native and will continually “bring her down” so to speak.

Spirit is in 14 Pisces! And I am persuaded that the actions that really dominate this woman’s life and
fortunes are those produced by Spirit. First the lord of Spirit, Jupiter, aspects Spirit from the ascendant.
The Sun and chart luminary is with Spirit, applying to Spirit which falls within its bodily influence. Now this
native will always land on her feet, regardless of what Fortune will bring her. Spirit is in a feminine water
sign so her decisions and counsel and thoughts, speech and intentions will be motivated by a need of
emotional security. They will be a result of what happens to her and not what she does. These choices will
always be well thought out (Jupiter joined to Mercury) they will always have a subtler reason for action.
This woman’s thoughts and actions are both self-serving and cleverly responding to Fortunes dictates.
While her cleverness and her desire for happiness in professions and reputation is a contributing cause of
her Fortunes miseries (Mercury is in the 7th from Fortune), through her choices of actions she will always,
as I said, land on her feet with Jupiter the ruler in the Ascendant and house of acquisition (the 11th) from
Fortune and the ruler of Fortune, the Sun, is applying to and received by the ruler of Spirit! It is ultimately
Jupiter that is going to accomplish the things of Fortune!

In conclusion, I would say this native is a very self-determined individual, who is quite happy with herself
and reputation (no regrets there) and who has had her ups and downs as far as her fortunes are
concerned, but because of her decisions has always come out on top of things.

Steven

Biography of the delineated

[Two points: Her story is complicated and the simplest thing to do is to write up the relevant portions of
her biography in one post and discuss the astrology in a second. What follows is the best I could unravel
in a short time from a very complicated situation.

The second point is the usual disclaimer. If you want to work on the chart without knowing who the native
is, stop reading now. Otherwise, read on.]

There is so much to this woman’s story and it is so complicated that I can’t possibly cram it into a single
post. The best I can do is to stay close to her part and skim over others that are as important. What we
need to keep in mind are the times in which she became famous or infamous depending on your
viewpoint. The notorious part of her story takes place from roughly 1961 to 1963. We are at the end of the
post war 1950s and just before the era that would become the over-romanticized, over-glorified, wildly
exagerated 1960s. The old mores are changing and these events contributed, but not in any way anyone
could have foreseen. And most importantly these incidents surround the year 1962 - the year of the
Cuban Missile Crises, which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear confrontation between the US and
the USSR. Espionage at this time could result in nuclear war. And espionage or at least the charges of
espionage figure greatly in the story.

Our native is Christine Keeler, who, born to the lower classes and into poverty, nonetheless became, at
the ripe old age of 21, a household name associated with prostitution, sexual escapades, the British
aristocracy, and Cold War spying. In 1963, I first heard the phrase “call girl” defined as an expensive
prostitute (as opposed to a streetwalker) and it was associated with Keeler. Yet to this day she denies she
ever was a prostitute. From what I could gather doing desktop research, she is probably telling the truth. I
believe her.

Christine Keeler was probably not born in London as I erroneously posted, but, according to her
autobiography, in Uxbridge, Middlesex, which changes the chart very little. I’ve also found other locations
for her birth. Her father left her and her mother during Christine’s infancy. Her mother took up with a man
Christine was encouraged to accept as her father. The family lived in an old converted railroad carriage,
and her childhood was certainly less than ideal. She was terrified of her step father and went out of her
way to avoid being alone with him. She even went so far as to sleep with a knife under her pillow in case
he should come into her room. He never did and from I could find he never touched her, but she hated
him anyway. She also claimed that the men in the neighborhood used to try to kiss and fondle her when
she would baby-sit for their children. She was a very beautiful girl.

At the age of 17 in 1959 she was working, possibly as a topless waitress, in Murray’s Nightclub in London
and met Stephen Ward a well connected osteopath. Ward’s address book included people like Frank
Sinatra, Elizabeth Taylor, Winston Churchill and other members of Parliament, and British aristocracy. He
also had some odd sexual appetites. Christine eventually moved in with him in 1961 when she was 19
and he was 47.

In July 1961 Ward takes her to a party at Lord Astor’s home Cliveden, an historic mansion, where she first
meets John Profumo, British Secretary of War. At the party, a very hot night, Keeler went looking for a
swim suit and found one that didn’t fit too well. Keeler complained about the fit and Ward jokingly said,
“Why don’t you take it off?” She did and jumped into the swimming pool nude and started cavorting.
Profumo and others went to the pool to see what all the splashing and noise were about and they were
confronted by a dripping wet and naked Christine Keeler. She found a towel for cover, and Mrs. Profumo
found her a better fitting swim suit. Ward had hidden hers. The following day she was introduced to a
Russian Naval attaché named Eugene Ivanov who British Intelligence, M15, considered to be a spy. She
liked Ivanov and began an intimate relationship with him. Profumo, 46 years old and married, obtains
Keeler’s phone number and quickly begins a short lived affair with the 19 year old, but when he learns
she is also sleeping with the Russian he breaks it off [Keeler’s version as to why it was broken off and
who was working with whom is a bit different].

Rumors spread about Keeler and Profumo and never died, but nothing came of the matter until
December, 1962, when a shooting incident (Keeler refused to let an ex-boyfriend, Johnnie Edgecomb,
into her home, so he shot the door in an attempt to unlock it) and a curious press investigated and
brought out the rumors once more. Profumo was investigated and swore to the House of Commons that
he never had anything to do with her and in private muttered things like, “Who is going to believe a word
of that little tart?” Unfortunately for Profumo a letter that he wrote to her surfaced that began “Darling.”
Whoops.

Busted, Profumo resigned in June 1963, investigations galore began because of the possible
relationships between Keeler and Profumo and Ivanov. Was she spying for one side or the other and
obtaining information from “pillow talk?” Eventually even the CIA got into the act trying to find out if British
security was compromised. After all Stephen Ward introduced Ivanov to the British officials and to Keeler
and her eventual roommate Mandy Rice-Davies. Ivanov was eventually recalled to Moscow and never
heard from again. Stephen Ward was brought to trial on trumped up charges of living off prostitution
(Keeler and Mandy Rice- Davies were the alleged prostitutes), and committed suicide the day the jury
reached, but had not yet announced, its verdict (guilty). Keeler was eventually convicted of perjury for a
misstated detail in her testimony in the trial of Edgecomb, the man that fired the shots at her door, and
she did 9 months in prison. All of this before she turned 22.

This was my initial interest in the chart. How is it that a poorly educated, unsophisticated girl born on the
wrong side of the tracks, gets involved in high politics, and causes an international brouhaha at 21? [The
ladies reading these words will kindly resist the obvious answer: “Because men are stupid.”] It had to be
more than just her looks. I hoped the chart might show us.

Throughout her life she worked menial and low-paying jobs, but probably never did work as a prostitute.
Rice-Davies apparently did work as a prostitute from time to time. The accuracy of these assertions
depends on how we define “prostitute.” If we mean a woman who does this for a living, sees clients at
appointed times for regular rates, then I would argue Keeler is telling the truth; she never did that. But
Ward did set her up with the rich and powerful and she did go to bed with them and they did give her
money and gifts to keep her interested. She and Mandy Rice-Davies, who was engaged in similar
activities, used to laugh about it. So she was clearly promiscuous, but not what is euphemistically called
today a “sex worker.”

The last interview with her that I could find was done in 2001. She just published her second book on the
“Profumo Affair,” motivated in part by her following of what the interviewer called “The Lewinsky
Hearings,” and because she needed the money. In this the second book recounting the affair she made
some startling new revelations. She said she was made pregnant by Profumo, but aborted the pregnancy
without telling him. The affair was over before she knew she was pregnant. She said the emphasis on the
sexual side of the scandal and the description of her as a “call girl” was the invention of Lord Denning the
man who headed the official investigation in the affair. She said this was a red herring designed to keep
people away from the very real espionage that was going on. She claimed that Ward was a Soviet Agent
and so was M15 Director Sir Roger Hollis. She believes M15 and the CIA (is there a boogeyman on earth
as ubiquitous as the CIA?) wanted and perhaps still want her dead because she knows too much. All of
these claims are somewhat plausible, but completely unverifiable. For the record, I don’t believe them.
Vast conspiracy theories are rarely accurate, and usually depend heavily on listener’s ignorance.
Espionage at that level would (or should) be too careful to allow a teenager to see and learn so much. My
take is that she was a beautiful young woman who attracted men easily and loved the effect she had on
them and/or saw this kind of behavior as her “way out” of the life she so hated. She grew up in poverty
and was impressed by the power and money of the people with whom she associated (who wouldn’t?),
but lacked the maturity to handle it. Being so young, she had no idea that the consequences of her
actions could be so profound. In short she was in way over her head, and people who should have known
better took advantage of her. Her belief that Lord Denning, who conducted the official inquiry into the
matter, manufactured the prostitution and played up the sex angle to divert attention away from the
obvious security lapses is probably correct, but his precise motive cannot be proven. Was he covering up
espionage or stupidity? Interestingly Denning managed to get the British government to seal the
transcripts of his interviews with Keeler until 2045. He wanted them destroyed.

After the Affair died down a bit, the government of Harold Macmillan fell. Keeler married for the first time
and had a son. It didn’t last. She would remarry; give birth to another son and divorce. The eldest was
raised by her mother, apparently not by Christine’s choice. She raised the younger one. She worked at a
series of low paying jobs, but her past always caught up to her. She assumed a new name, but when her
employer discovered who she was, she would be let go often without explanation. Clearly life has not
been easy for Christine Keeler.

While she does whine a lot, and has the attitude that everything was someone else’s fault, to be fair to her
and her assertions, these men may well have acted in the way she claims, but for reasons other than an
elaborate cover-up of treason. Their behavior was an embarrassment to them and to their country.
Embarrassing or not, The British, like their American cousins can never seem to get enough of a juicy sex
scandal. Relations between Britain and its US ally were endangered as the CIA wondered if British
security had been breached, and subsequently wrote a 1000 page report on the matter. True or not they
had to hide the perception of the failure of security. According to Keeler the smear was born to hide the
breach and espionage at the highest levels. Sex is more interesting to the public than spying, particularly
when it is the rich and powerful who are bearing the brunt of the humiliation. The aristocracy counted on
their status in society to shield them when it came to a “he said; she said” standoff. But even that
unraveled.

At the Ward trial Keeler’s roommate Mandy Rice-Davies was on the witness stand professing to have
been paid for sex by Lord Astor. Astor’s lawyer, whose own eminence in the legal profession probably
commanded a great fee, sought to overwhelm the little trollop on the stand. He thundered, “You are aware
that Lord Astor denies the affair and even denies knowing you?” Rice-Davies’ confident, smug, immortal
response was: “Well, he would; wouldn’t he?” The presumption of belief that Lord Astor’s attorney
counted on for his client was buried under gales of courtroom laughter. The world changed a little bit at
that moment. The phrase is still employed today.

Very few people believe there is anything more to this sordid affair than a good old-fashioned sex
scandal. Keeler’s claims are only that, claims. No evidence of breaches of security was ever documented.
If that actually happened, it was kept well under wraps.

Profumo spent the rest of his life doing charitable work. Keeler noted in her 2001interview, that at age 86,
Profumo had a new girlfriend. “Why ever not,” she said. He died in March, 2006, at the age of 91. As
mentioned above, Ward committed suicide and Ivanov disappeared from history. Sir Roger Hollis died in
1972. Macmillan’s Conservative party lost power that it would not regain until the Prime Ministry of
Margaret Thatcher. Mandy Rice-Davies (b. Oct 21, 1944, probably London) is, to the best of my
knowledge, still alive. She has apparently done some TV and movie acting. She would be 63 as of this
writing.

I could not find anything about Christine Keeler on the web after the 2001 interview and publication of her
book. She is presumably alive and well and maybe even at peace. I hope so. She does not seem to
regret her choices, only the results.

Below is a rough chronology of the major events in Keeler’s life.

Feb 2, 1942: Keeler is born in Uxbridge, Middlesex

1958: Keeler becomes pregnant by an American GI. She tries to abort the pregnancy and fails. The child
dies several days after he is born.

1959: Christine Keeler meets Dr. Stephen Ward while she is working as a showgirl at Murray’s Nightclub
in London.

September 1960: Mandy Rice Davies begins to work at Murray’s. The meeting between her and Keeler
was described as, “Dislike at first sight.”

Feb. 1961: Keeler moves in with Stephen Ward. Here, she says, she witnessed Ward meeting with
Eugene Ivanov, Sir Roger Hollis, and Anthony Blunt.

July 8, 1961: Keeler meets John Profumo at a party at Cliveden, Lord Astor’s mansion in
Buckinghamshire.

August 1961: Profumo ends the affair.

December 14, 1962: Keeler’s ex boyfriend tries to shoot his way into her apartment (Ward’s apartment
really) at Wimpole Mews. The police are called and the media gets interested in who comes and goes to
this flat.

Marc 22, 1963: Profumo makes a personal statement to the House of Commons denying any involvement
with Keeler.

June 5, 1963: John Profumo resigns as Secretary of War.

July 30, 1963: On the last day of his trial, Stephen Ward kills himself.

1963: Keeler is imprisoned for 9 months for perjury. She is released in May or June of 1964 after serving
nine months. She is the only person involved in the Profumo Affair to go to jail for anything.

That Famous Photograph: While photos of Keeler can be found on the web, there is one that is still a
classic. Keeler was working under contract to promote a film by modeling. The film was never released.
Her contract called for her to be photographed nude, but she balked when the time came. The
photographer, Lewis Morley, chased other workers from the room and suggested that Keeler remove her
clothes while his back was turned, and she could sit in a chair facing its back. She would technically be
fulfilling her contract as she would be nude. She agreed and he took 10 or 12 photos of her in the chair.
One of them became an iconic photo of the “swinging sixties” and sales of the chair soared. By today’s
standards it is tame, but its potent sexuality cannot be denied despite the fact it does not reveal all that
much. It can be seen here: http://www.woolamaloo.org.uk/ChristineKeeler.jpg

Mystery Chart 15 - posted on skyscript forums Mon Feb 16-

2009

Male
October 1, 1888
8:37 AM
St. Louis, MO, USA
90 W 12
38 N 37
10 Scorpio 01 rises

Analysis by Steven B.

I don’t have so much time remaining for a long discussion of this chart. I always find it difficult
to participate on forums as I can never give easy one line answers or comments. When I try to do
these things on the run, I usually always end up putting one or both feet in my mouth. Some
people are quite adept at ‘thinking on their feet’ so to speak. There are times I really wish I had
that ability. I am a slow plodder (probably due to both Jupiter and Saturn aspecting the cusp of
my ascendant which is a fixed sign <g>)

Anyway, I’ll try and at least make a comment to answer Tom’s suggestion that we look at the
profession of the native. And so everyone understands what my delineations are rooted in, I use
the Alchabitius Declination system of divisions and whole signs. Likewise I use the Egyptian
system of bounds (terms).

This is an interesting chart and certain things really ‘jump’ out at me with regards to profession.
There are several things we should consider: natural significators and accidental significators.
First we have two of the planets naturally signifying profession (Mars, Mercury and Venus) in
the sign of the Ascendant. Mercury is joined (separating from conjunction) to Venus. Because
this is the sign of the Ascendant it speaks directly to the natives ‘skills’ used to gain his
livelihood.

Accidentally, because this is a diurnal chart there is another significator we should consider
which is found by examining that planet to whom the Moon joins upon her loosing of the bond
of the preceding lunation (SAN). This is a preventional chart meaning that the preceding lunation
was the full Moon at 27 Pisces. At 27 Pisces she is joined to none, but as she looses her bond
with the Sun (5 degrees separated from the SAN) she is joined to Jupiter. Jupiter falls in the
Ascendant by division. So Jupiter will also have a testimony concerning the natives’ livelihood.
And since Jupiter is in the sign of the 2nd house and ruler of that house, this livelihood will be
good! It would have been preferable for Jupiter to have been oriental of the Sun. The fact that it
is under the horizon and occidental in an occidental quarter speaks to weakness of its
signification! In other words I think the native finds a good livelihood from his profession but it
is not going to produce an enormous quantity! It will be consistent (because of its angularity by
division) but the intensity of the quality (Jupiter in its preferred domicile) will not be able to
manifest as what Jupiter could have produced. It will be good and sufficient and consistent and
even more than needed. However with a malefic in the same house there will be losses and
sudden expenditures etc. We also need to look at any planets in the Midheaven, especially if they
are of the same sect and in the sect of the chart and oriental of the Sun! So secondly we should
absolutely pay close attention to Saturn which is conjunct the cusp of the 10th in a strong oriental
position of the chart luminary and ruler of the 10th! These two houses (Ascendant and
Midheaven) particularly speak directly to profession and livelihood!

Since Mercury is closest to the cusp of the Ascendant, I think his livelihood is strongly Mercurial
in nature because Mercury rejoices in the Ascendant sign – had Mercury been joined to Venus
while applying I might have been inclined to say this native is involved in the arts in some way.
It is not so I deem that his livelihood is gained by speech, writing, and philosophy, the science of
numbers, or astronomy or astrology even. Whatever Mercury signifies, will have a certain
‘controversial’ mode since it is in the domicile of Mars and Mars is joined to Saturn in the 10th! I
don’t think he is particularly ‘scientific’ since Mercury is not joined with Saturn. However Saturn
is ‘superior’ to Mercury and the most elevated planet in the chart so there is some element of
science that is influential in his livelihood. Now that is speaking according to the general natural
significations. What is accidentally signified by house rulership is even more interesting.
For that I will consider the planets joined to Saturn and Mercury. First Mercury separating from
but still joined by conjunction to Venus would indicate to me that the native’s profession mingles
him/her with influential women that he values and through whom he acquires professional profit.
At the same time it indicates that the native is ‘proven’ in scripture and religious rites.

Saturn’s signification is very interesting. Here the ruler of the 9th (the Moon) is joined by
conjunction to the ruler of the 3rd and 4th. In fact, the Moon commits her disposition to Saturn
which receives that disposition as the Moon is in his triplicity and terms. In other words, Saturn
perfects the matters of the Moon! Now again there is an element of controversy and even
estrangement and censorship underlying this relationship since the Moon is in aversion to her
domicile and Saturn is in aversion to the 3rd and these two houses have a common signification
with regards to religion/philosophy! Since the Mercury/Venus relationship is telling me he gains
his livelihood from a proven knowledge of scripture and rites, and Saturn is ruler of the 3rd (the
practical day to day application of religion) and receives the disposition of the ruler of the 9th
(the natives fundamental beliefs) then I am led to conclude that this native’s ‘profession’ is that
of a writer, speaker, and disputant of philosophical or religious matters. And if he does practice
astrology (which Mercury in the ascendant might suggest) then his astrology will also contain
these elements.

As to the nature of his religion/philosophy I am very inclined to say that it is very esoteric or
occult in nature. This is because it is particularly the Moon ruling the 9th and committing its
disposition to Saturn which is ruler of the 4th and concerns a deep knowledge of mysteries and
the past and how they may be applied in practice (Saturn also ruler of the 3rd.) The Moon also
suggests the interpretation of dreams and oracles etc. But it is particularly the application of these
religious and philosophical ideas that alienate the subject and cause controversy (Saturn in
aversion to Capricorn which is the 3rd).

I would have to say that the native was/is successful and gains reputation and honours in his
profession but since Saturn is Saturn, there is some ‘fall from grace’ he is destined to experience.
I don’t believe this native’s “actions” are necessarily universally accepted or desired! Since
Saturn is ruler of the 4th and signifies his legacy and what he remembered for in life, and Saturn,
in spite of its testimony (triplicity and terms) in the 10th is still in its detriment and therefore that
reputation is likely to be scorned and criticised as a part of his legacy.

He most definitely received honour and some dignity in his professional life. We can’t ignore the
fact that the ruler of the 10th, the Sun, is applying to Saturn (and will in fact perfect its joining
with Saturn before Mars) and these two are in mutual reception (domicile and exaltation) and his
reputation and honours (the Sun) is raised from obscurity and fall (Sun in Libra in the sign of the
12th) because of the favourable aspect and reception by Saturn!

Ok, sorry I have to quit right now. There is no doubt I could have said much more had I the time
to discuss the Parts of Fortune and Spirit, his temperament and modal type and even his Almuten
Figuris will figure strongly and perhaps even modify some of these observations. But other
obligations beckon<g>. At least these are just a few things that particularly stood out to me.
Steven

Biography of the delineated

The traditional forum is an odd place for a discussion of the chart of this particular native, but
given his influence in astrology, we might wish to have a traditional look at his chart. If this had
been done early in his life, the entire study may have turned out differently. Our native is the
occultist, theosophist and astrologer, Marc Edmond Jones. What Alan Leo is in English
astrology, Jones is to American astrology.

From an early age Jones was fascinated by geometric patterns. He liked seeing patterns and
putting things together, and finding function in them. In 1903 at the age of 16, Jones made a
Christian commitment, but the following year he began to study Theosophy. He would study it
for the rest of his life. He didn’t come to astrology until 1913 when his chart was interpreted by
one Ella Woods. He evidently taken by the subject and began to study horary astrology, which he
would practice almost his entire life.

Jones would come to reject the astrology of the late 19th and early 20th century and remake it.
His criticism of astrologer Elizabeth Aldrich was typical. In Jones’ view she would look up
anything that could possibly be of relevance and put it in the back of her mind. Eventually she
would present her insights based on all the information she stored in her memory. In Jones
opinion this was “omen astrology” and he dismissed it as “intuitive.” His dismissal of intuition
over logic would probably surprise more than a few modern astrologers who know of his later
work, but not how he arrived there.

Jones wished to base astrology on logic, but he had to base his logic on something. He tried to
develop a history of astrology upon which to base his beliefs, but none existed in the early 20th
century. At least none existed in English. He haltingly wrote one, in pieces. His history of
astrology was largely based on what Theosophists had to say about the subject. Consequently
Jones came to the conclusion that he was “restoring” astrology to its original pure state. He
called it “Sabian Astrology.” When asked about his Sabian system he wrote to the inquirer:
Quote:
The Sabian system is my own name for the reconstruction of the Chaldean or Babylonian science
as far as I have been able to dig it out through sources here and there. That is, it is a recovery on
my part not an invention. So far I have not been able to get much of anything in writing
concerning it, and have nothing that I can send you although a little later on I will have a full
correspondence course.
In other words, he was making it up as he went along. No such system of astrology ever existed
at any time. What he was also doing, knowingly or not, was laying the groundwork for
psychological astrology. He detested prediction, despite his horary work, and if astrologers don’t
predict then they must do something else. His system eliminated the distinction between malefic
and benefic planets, dropped prediction in order to eliminate the “fatalism” and claimed the
planets and other symbols indicated “potentialities” or possibilities in the individual. From here it
was a short, easy step for Dane Rudhyar to graft psychology on to the symbols and a new
astrology was born.

Jones’ love of patterns is easily seen in his work The Guide to Horoscope Interpretation (1941).
Jones divides the patterns formed by the planets in a circular chart into seven groups, and once
properly assigned the astrologer can make generalized deductions from the pattern and use it as a
basis for delineation. This is similar to what a traditional astrologer does when he determines
temperament. I is a broad brush stroke used to understand the more specific delineations that
follow.

Jones is also, to my knowledge the “inventor” or “discoverer,” if you will, of certain aspect
configurations such as the “T-square.” “Grand Cross,” and perhaps others. If he wasn’t the first
to use these things he surely laid the groundwork for them. An interesting contrast is in Jean
Baptiste Morin’s Astrologia Gallica Book 23 Revolutions. Morin discusses the chart of Gustav
Adolphus, King of Sweden. He pays particular attention to a configuration of Saturn opposing
Jupiter, Lord ASC, and both being squared by Mars – a T-square. He notes the effects of planets
hitting these natal placements in solar and lunar returns and never once describes the original
configuration as anything but an opposition and two squares. Jones would have jumped all over
the T-square.

The configuration in Jones’ chart that I find most striking is the trine from Mars to the MC,
Saturn, and the Moon. Mars is Jones’ lord ASC. In aspect with the planet of destruction (too
strong a word for what Jones did but it fits) and the ruler of the 9th as well as the MC we can see
Jones’ work or activity will “destroy” or radically change something and that something will be
in the world of ideas. OR if we look at Saturn as structure rather than destruction we can still see
him bringing about changes in the structure of something intellectual. Jones sanguine
temperament tells us that we are not dealing with a violent or overtly aggressive nature, so
despite Mars’ involvement it is unlikely that we are dealing with a military type of change.

Jones’ is probably best known as the astrologer who developed the “Sabian Symbols.” In 1925
while living in San Diego California he took psychic Elsie Wheeler to a park where she
“developed” a symbol for each of the 360 degrees of the zodiac. Jones wrote these down and
worked with them, but did not publish the Sabian Symbols until 1953. Despite his claims that
these symbols were part of some original ancient astrology, there is simpy no evidence of degree
symbols in any known astrological system until Jones published his book The Sabian Symbols in
Astrology.

He was a tireless promoter of astrology and worked and lectured until his death in March of
1980, at the age of 91. For better or for worse Jones provided the bridge from what is, unfairly in
my view, characterized as “fatalistic” astrology to psychological astrology using a system of his
own creation that had no historical basis despite his claims of antiquity.