Hi Tom ... you're question re: the chart reflecting reality or perception is interesting.

Based on Mercury conjunct and dispositing Venus (Asc ruler) applying to a sextile of Mars my own take is that this was a person who lied easily; if Mercury was separating from Mars I would think it was someone less inclined to lies. While lying does not make him a criminal it does make me wonder about his character. The conjunction to Jupiter could possibly incline him to honesty;however, Jupiter has no dignity in Scorpio and is subordinate to Mars in domicile. His sextile to Mercury and Venus is in his place of Fall so I think Jupiter would incline more to hypocrisy than honesty.

Given that the Asc is in Libra, a cardinal sign, he is someone who makes things happen vs waiting for things to come to him and Venus in a passive sign (Virgo) would indicate someone who took advantage of whatever the environment offered. Again, this is not necessarily a bad trait but I would think he acted primarily from personal motives and not because of what was happening around him. Believe this is re-inforced by the Moon, ruler of the MC, also in Virgo. The phrase "it's not personal, it's just business" comes to mind.

Both his lot of fortune and his lot of spirit fall in Libra in the 1st with Venus averse to both lots. Schmidt, following Valens, says, in Zodiacal Releasing from Spirit, that when the lot's ruler is averse one should use the exaltation ruler if it is not averse. Saturn is the exaltation ruler of Libra. It is in the radix 11th and also in the 11th from the two lots. The 11th from the lot is the place of achievement which makes Saturn quite strong in relation to both his Fortune and Spirit. Saturn is in his detriment in Leo; indicating an ambition for 'royal' status. A planet in detriment is spoiled or debased; it's actions are perverted in some fashion. Saturn would hinder, or thwart his personal ambition to rise in life; and possibly shows the re-direction of those ambitions onto his children (Saturn rules 5th). One could say his ambitions were realized through his children but that Saturn ultimately destroyed them.

His 2nd house is very strong with Mars in the 2nd in domicile conjunct Jupiter. According to Morin he would make money using daring (Mars) and foresight (Jupiter). Jupiter would give him an eagerness for wealth. As Mars rules the 7th one source would be through marriage, partnerships or litigations. Jupiter rules the 3rd and 6th so other possible sources are relatives, contracts (3rd) and servants or employees (6th). The conjunction is sextile Venus (women, theatre, or entertainments) and sextile Mercury (business transactions). Also, Mars has an analogy to robbery and Mercury connected to the 7th (Mars rules 7th) can indicate thieves so I don't think shady deals were beyond him.

One thing I found interesting, Venus rules both the Asc and the 8th (legacies). Kennedy's fortune ended up in a tightly controlled trust fund; it did not go directly to his wife or children so in one sense, he is still pulling the purse strings from behind the scenes (Venus in 12th).

Hi Janeg,

you wrote:

As Mars rules the 7th one source would be through marriage, partnerships or litigations. Jupiter rules the 3rd and 6th so other possible sources are relatives, contracts (3rd) and servants or employees (6th).

This is interesting because Robert Zoller teaches exactly the opposite - at least concerning the 2nd house. He says that " The good or bad signified by a house emanates from the ruler of the house". And concerning the 2nd house he repeatedly says that the ruler of the 2nd shows the sources or reason/basis of the income. As Mars is in the 2nd his 2nd would also be the source (what seems to sound a little odd). A possible source could be his assistants and advisors. But because every house has the inherent meaning of the opposite house another source could be inheritance (2nd opposite 8th). Additionally on could use derived house meanings: the source of his income/wealth could be the job/profession of his children, the self-undoing of his brothers or the friends of his father.

What is your further experience with this "source-outcome problem" (also as to all the other houses)?

Best wishes
J?rgen

Hi Jogi ....

Zoller actually uses a calculation to find the Financial Significator; in this case it works out as Mars, ruler of the 2nd in domicile conjunct Jupiter which has a natural analogy to wealth. Mars in domicile makes the wealth 'certain' and this is supported by the Jupiter conjunction. (The Lot of Fortune is rejected as FS since it is only aspected by Saturn, it's exaltatin ruler, who is in detriment and has to be rejected. The Lot of Substance is rejected as FS as its only aspect is from the Moon, triplicity ruler, but the Moon is combust and so must be rejected).

Mars in the 2nd shows wealth from wealth, according to Zoller, DMA Lesson 13

Significator in the 2nd House - S/he acquires substance by the fruit of his or her own possessions and goods by trade or by those other means which are exercised with money or by other things signified by the second house. In other words, s/he increases personal wealth through investment or manipulation of money.

So he uses money to make money; anything connected to Mars in the chart offers a possible means of obtaining money. Since Mars rules the 7th, one means is from marriage, partnerships or litigations. As Jupiter rules the 3rd and 6th, another means is through relatives or employees. The sextiles to Venus and Mercury indicate other avenues for acquiring wealth, etc.

So I don't believe what I've said is contrary to what Zoller teaches. The 2nd shows the native's substance or wealth and the manner in which it is acquired or lost as well as the methods used; for Mars, both licit and illicit methods are indicated.

Jane and Jogi,

Nice work.

Again, this is not necessarily a bad trait but I would think he acted primarily from personal motives and not because of what was happening around him. Believe this is re-inforced by the Moon, ruler of the MC, also in Virgo. The phrase "it's not personal, it's just business" comes to mind.

In a nutshell this is the position of biographer Richard Whalen (The Founding Father 1964). "Getting rich" is not the only reason why people try to make money. Kennedy did it for prestige and was probably quite surprised when he realized money wasn't enough. At least it wasn't enough for the kind of prestige he wanted. During the 1960 campaign he asked Arthur Schlesinger, "Are you writing those speeches for my son?" He said yes. Kennedy replied, "Too liberal for me," and walked away.

In other words, his seeking prestige outweighed any political beliefs or convictions he may have had. This was business and it was a businessman's pragmatism that let him walk away.

Saturn is the exaltation ruler of Libra. It is in the radix 11th and also in the 11th from the two lots. The 11th from the lot is the place of achievement which makes Saturn quite strong in relation to both his Fortune and Spirit. Saturn is in his detriment in Leo; indicating an ambition for 'royal' status. A planet in detriment is spoiled or debased; it's actions are perverted in some fashion. Saturn would hinder, or thwart his personal ambition to rise in life; and possibly shows the re-direction of those ambitions onto his children (Saturn rules 5th). One could say his ambitions were realized through his children but that Saturn ultimately destroyed them.

This is also exactly on the money, and I think an accurate description of the man and his life. It is also a pretty good descriptions of the proverb that the sins of the father are visited on the sons. The only thing is there is no direct connection between the family tragedies and Kennedy's activities. It's not like mobster John Gotti and John Gotti Jr both ending up in jail. I doubt Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan had any idea who Joseph Kennedy was. Yet there is something eerily deterministic about the fates of some of his offspring.

Mars in the 2nd shows wealth from wealth, according to Zoller, DMA Lesson 13

Quote:

Significator in the 2nd House - S/he acquires substance by the fruit of his or her own possessions and goods by trade or by those other means which are exercised with money or by other things signified by the second house. In other words, s/he increases personal wealth through investment or manipulation of money.

So he uses money to make money; anything connected to Mars in the chart offers a possible means of obtaining money. Since Mars rules the 7th, one means is from marriage, partnerships or litigation. As Jupiter rules the 3rd and 6th, another means is through relatives or employees. The sextiles to Venus and Mercury indicate other avenues for acquiring wealth, etc.

He did marry pretty well, but if I recall correctly the marriage offered more in political gains than financial - not that Rose Fitzgerald wasn't well off. He did use what he earned to make even more. That is unquestionable. He was a bank president at age 25 and took advantage of that to make money in the then emerging motion picture industry. He did have, presumably legal, liquor distributorships, which brings me back to the original question: does the chart reflect reality or reputation or both? I had a teacher a long time ago who told the class: "You are three people. You're the person you see yourself as; you are the person others see; and you are the person you really are." I didn't know astrology in the 8th grade, but I now wonder which one the chart shows.

In Kennedy's case he was probably (probably?) by any objective standard, a ruthless businessman. He was also probably at times unethical (Winning isn't everything; winning is the only thing). He was doubtlessly hated by some, as one of his financial forefathers, Jay Gould, was hated. Was he deserving of the hate and disdain? Was he really all that horrible?

When Patty Hearst was on trial, for one reason or another, I don't recall why, her mother was on the witness stand and was asked by the Prosecutor if she had referred to him (the prosecutor) as "ambitious." She replied sweetly, "Why Mr. ________ I'm from the establishment. I think ambition is admirable." Shakespeare told us ambition was a "grievous fault." Kennedy was by any standard ambitious, maybe that's all the chart can tell us and the judgments are up to us.

Tom

Janeg,

I?m sorry, maybe I expressed myself a bit clumsy - by no means I ment that you said something contrary to what Zoller teaches! I?m still not very familiar with the tradtional techniques and interpretations .

I have not read Lesson 13 yet so I can`t refer to the FS. I was just a bit confused (and I`m still) because you mentioned that the 7th house with Aries on the cusp is a source of his wealth. And when I understood Zoller right he sees the house postion of the ruler as the source :
In Lesson 8 he writes:

As such it (the Almuten of the 2nd house) indicates, by its nature, state and house position, the origin or source of the benfit promised by the 2nd house which it rules (in this case as the Almuten). We are therefore justified in saying that the natives`s 6th house (where the Almuten is in) is a source of his wealth

And there my confusion starts. The ruler of a house in another house links the affairs of both houses - but in which way exactly? It is somewhat clear to me that it is difficult to closely distinguish between the origin/source and the goal/outcome. And I think I`ve read something from Morin where he sees the sign on the house cusp as the source and not the affairs of the house the ruler is positioned - what indeed sounds logic for me.

So the question for me is: which way is the right one or the better one (if it is possible to ask that question at all in astrology) or can one use both togehter? And regarding this I would be interested in your experience and your procedure .

Hi Jogi ... lol ... online conversations can be a bit tricky I did not take your original post as a criticism, apologies if my response came across as curt; that wasn't my intent.

And there my confusion starts. The ruler of a house in another house links the affairs of both houses - but in which way exactly? It is somewhat clear to me that it is difficult to closely distinguish between the origin/source and the goal/outcome. And I think I`ve read something from Morin where he sees the sign on the house cusp as the source and not the affairs of the house the ruler is positioned - what indeed sounds logic for me.

You're right that when the ruler of a house is in another house the affairs of the two houses become linked. But a planet ruling two or more houses also links the affairs of those houses. The best way I can think to explain it is that the affairs of the house ruled, by sign, will be subservient to the affairs of the house the planet is located in since, as Morinus says, position is stronger than rulership.

If I understand you correctly, I believe you are asking two things

1. How do you tell if the native will have a 2nd House i.e. substance or wealth, and

2. What are the sources of that wealth?


Morin, Book 21, section 13 House Combinations

The ruler of a house located in the house has a remarkable power to assist the affairs of that house if it is a fortunate one and especially if the planet has an analogy to the house because a planet in its own sign is unmixed in quality, is responsible only to itself, and is independent of other planets in its actions and is therefore very strong and generally benefic...Even Saturn and Mars act this way unless they are made unfortunate through some other means...

In this chart, Mars is in domicile and very strong, A planet in domicile is certain to produce what it promises and even more so if it is in a fixed sign (which Scorpio is). When you add Jupiter's conjunction with Mars this increases the chance the native will have wealth as Jupiter is the greater benefic and has an analogy to wealth.

Mars will produce the wealth and as he's actually in the 2nd he indicates he will, primarily, produce wealth from whatever money and possessions the native already has.

In Morin, Book 21, section 14

The meanings of the house without its ruler are usually resolved into the meanings of the house where that ruler actually is.

Mars is the main source of the 2nd House's wealth; however, he also rules the 7th. Using the above rule, we can say that Mars 7th House activites will also produce wealth for the native.

If Mars ruled the 2nd and 7th and was actually in the 7th we would say that his wealth (2nd) went to or was spent on his spouse or partners or in litigations because the 2nd house affairs would resolve into the 7th House affairs.

Hope that makes sense and I haven't misunderstood what you were asking.

lol...Hi Steven, how on earth do you remember all this stuff Now I have to figure out where I got the 11th as the place of achievement (think it may be in relation to the Lot of Spirit ... I'll have to dig around in my notes).

Point taken, nothing is written in stone Have you already written a book, I've been out of touch with things the last year or two.

All the best to you and yours

Jane

Edit: ahhh, found it, Schmidt, in his review of Einstein's chart in ZRS, refers to the Fortune 11th as the place of acquisition and achievement

Hi Steven,

Great work as usual. One point:

Saturn is both in its own triplicity ...

Saturn is in Leo in the triplicity of the Sun is it not or have I misunderstood something?

Tom

Hi Tom ... I think Steven is referring to Saturn's role as the participating triplicity ruler in Leo. For the Fire signs the triplicity rulers are: Sun by day, Jupiter by night, Saturn participates

steven wrote: 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.
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.
Saturn is oriental waxing in its strength....
4) A planet is suitably placed when in its own degrees or domicile. Saturn is both in its own triplicity and its own degrees (terms).

Hello Steven,
I completely agree with you. Saturn here is not just oriental but it has just passed his heliacal rising (the exact phase was on 19 August but a difference of some days could be considered OK): this is a very important testimony.

So in this chart Saturn is in hairesis, in his own place (did you mean the partecipating triplicity for Saturn?) and is doing his heliacal rising.
And whatever planet hardly damages when it is well placed, even a malefic.

Ptolemy writes in III book of Tetrabiblos (from the unpublished Bezza translation):
In this way natives, who, in consequence of the familiarity of the malefic stars, are wicked and dishonest, have their impulse to commit evil free and unrestrained, but when these malefic stars are strong, even with honour.

so Saturn
(from Ashmand's translation Tetrabiblos if posited in glory, both cosmically and with respect to the angles, will make men careful of their bodies, strong and profound in opinion, austere, singular in their modes of thinking, laborious, imperious, hostile to crime, avaricious, parsimonious, accumulators of wealth, violent, and envious.

Margherita