Well, L6 is Mars and L8 is Saturn and that's never a good thing.

L4 (which can also be a death indicator) is Mercury and L12 is Venus. Exaltation ruler of 12 is Moon.

And there's a chain-sextile (? not sure what to call it) from Jupiter in Libra (L10), Saturn in Sag (L8) - Mars in Aquarius (L6) - Mercury in Aries (L4). . Saturn trines Mercury in the sign of Saturn's fall - bad. Plus Mars trines Jupiter and Jupiter is in the sign of Mars's fall - also bad.

All of them save Mars are retrograde. too.

I have a similar configuration in my chart. Trines and sextiles to malefics - not always a good thing. Especially when they end up in aspect to a planet in the house of their detriment or fall.

I still say one needs to use the most appropriate chart, and with an exact birth time of 9:00 am and an Ascendant of 00 CAN 18 it's hard to not question Cancer rising! I can't help but question the smooth and easy 9:00 birth time and can only notice the more likely indications that a slight change of time brings.

To die like that so young is pretty extreme, but Cancer rising and the Moon as L1 gives the protection of a very functional benefic Venus in her dignities of exaltation, triplicity (Dorothean) and term. It's true that Venus is out of sect, but she is clear of the Sun's beams, direct and moving fast. The Moon is applying to conjoin that strong moderating and benefic influence.

Gemini rising (it only takes a birth time of 2 minutes earlier) gives combust retrograde peregrine Mercury as L1. That powerful Sun is frying retrograde Mercury and rules the 3rd house (transportation) in both Whole Sign and Placidus. In addition, Saturn is moved closer to the Descendant and located in the descending sign. Now we have warning signs to start with. Maybe I'm wrong to focus on the Lord of the ASC, but it seems to me the best and necessary place to start before moving on to the fancy stuff.

steven wrote:Hi Olivia,

That is obviously one place its stated. It's repeated in earlier texts also, Sahl makes that statement for another. Reading Bonatti's quote make me realise that that I've read these texts so many times I'm beginning to sound like these guys - kinda pathetic isn't it.

Steven

Not really. I mean if I wasn't 1300 years too late, I'd marry Sahl. He was the most wonderfully clear writer on horary - but I just happened to have Bonatti in front of me.

Please feel free to shoot me if I ever start sounding like him! I have a much better grasp of the Arabic/Jewish/Persian writers, probably because I have a better grasp of the languages and the culture.

I didn't mean Mercury as alchocoden, either. I'd just been working out one of those byzantine look-at-12-points-and-add-up-the-dignities-to-see-who-wins almutens and Mercury in Aries was one of them. Of course in the table I had in front of me, what I'd added up was Mercury's dispositor's dignities - also Mars in Aquarius in that one. Up too late, obviously, and being this geeky is probably making me a danger to myself and others

I also strongly suspected beseigement by malefics even in good aspect (but look at the way they aspect planets in their fall/detriment, too). I have a similar kind of deal with my own Sun, and that trine from Saturn and sextile from Mars (thankfully out of sign and both separating, but still close enough to count a little bit) have done me no favours in the world. I don't want to think how bad it'd be if I'd been born a few days earlier. Ditto Mercury, and that ISN'T out of sign, regrettably.

I'll ask my firdar question in the other thread.

In this chart the chart luminary, which is also the Hyleg, is very afflicted separating from one malefic and applying to another. Even though their aspects are the sextile and trine, it is still a form of besiegment.

I see a pretty strong Sun exalted in Aries above the horizon and rising in the 10th or 11th house (depending on whether Gemini or Cancer is rising and whether using quadrant or whole sign houses). I don't see Mars and Saturn afflicting and weakening the Sun so much as the Sun turning harmful and malefic. It may be besieged by the malefics but the trine and sextile soften the besiegement, therefore they easily pass their bad attitude on to the Sun, which then beats up Mercury (my choice as probable Lord of ASC) even more. So the Sun itself as hyleg doesn't weaken, but turns ugly and destructive. Not the sort of thing one would want conjunct the lord of the ASC, which I still think is likely to be Mercury.


Regarding the Sun:

1.) It is the chart luminary. What does that mean? It is the essence of the subjects vitality.
. . .
2) It is the Hyleg. Hyleg is the transliteration of the Arabic work for "life giver". While the Lord of the Ascendant is important it is not the only significator that deals with the "life" of a subject. In my opinion the Sun in this chart is every bit as important as the lord of the Ascendant.

But her vitality was apparently ok. She didn't die of disease. She lived to nearly 22 years old ? she made it through childhood. I think it's appropriate to move beyond 'vitality' as indicated by the Sun. It looks more like an issue involving the ASC and its lord ? something happening to the body rather than in it. And that takes me back to Mercury as L1 and Saturn conjunct the SAG Descendant . . .

The reception the Sun is separating from is Mars in the 9th! Mars is completely contrary in this chart; it is not of the diurnal sect, it is not in its proper "light" (i.e. below the horizon in a diurnal chart); it is in a masculine sign. A malefic in the 9th was a pretty sure testimony of danger when travelling or danger when living abroad etc.

This is where I get confused every time ? conflicting ideas. We're always hearing about the weakness of cadent houses and the preference of having the malefics there so they can't cause so much harm (like for an electional chart). This would seem to be a weakening influence on the power of Mars and give him less chance to act. Also, I still don't know where to stand regarding whether out of sect alters the quantity or quality of a planet's power. Does being out of sect make Mars meaner or weaker?

What makes this chart even more challeging for me is that I could not see anything at all in the SR and profection.

The SR for 1980 pointed something, but then she was already dead. Although there seems to be other testimonies as presented, it's quite terrifying to think that the promise of a good year in a SR can turn into a tragic death.

And as pointed by Kirk, there is the possibility of Mercury being the lord of the AC. She had just entered the Mercury fidar, dying exactly 15 days after entering the Saturn (8th house ruler) sub-period. That's important in my opinion.

I too was under the suspicion that she had Gemini rising. It is certainly reassuring to think that you can still notice something bad coming, through other techniques, independent of having a correct birthtime measured to the second. But that tiny possible mistake certainly messes things up, and the SR does not help even with the change of the 1st house ruler, in my opinion.

It's pretty weak, but from what I can tell of both the birth chart and the 1979 SR, in both of them the Ascendant was conjunct both the Lots of Peril and the Killing Planet.

Subtle, though - but eerie. Would NOT have picked up on it first go, and even on second go, I wouldn't have guessed this.

What makes this chart even more challeging for me is that I could not see anything at all in the SR and profection.

The SR for 1980 pointed something, but then she was already dead. Although there seems to be other testimonies as presented, it's quite terrifying to think that the promise of a good year in a SR can turn into a tragic death.

For the 1979 SR I get (using 8:50 am):
SR ASC square natal (& return) Sun with less than 1? orb. The super-charged nasty Sun is activated.
SR Mercury square natal ASC by 0? 04'. Actually, it squares the natal ASC-Saturn opposition.
SR Saturn opposed the natal Moon-Venus conjunction.
SR Moon (Lord of SR ascendant) is in fall and natal square Mars.
The SR Cancer ASC is averse the natal Gemini ASC (perhaps a weakish factor).

I'm just listing things here, enough to say it doesn't look to me like a promising year!

The lunar return before the accident gives a Virgo ASC conjunct Mars & Jupiter, all squared by their dispositor Mercury in detriment conjunct the IC. And there's LR Saturn (which is natally conjunct DESC & lord natal 8th) in the lunar return 1st.

I'm listing things again, but it looks like there are a lot of inter-relationships to consider for possibilities.

And with a 9 am (I set it for New York City) it's SR Sun square SR Jupiter on the Ascendant, SR Moon in 5 trine SR Venus back in Pisces in 9 conjunct the South Node, SR Mars on the MC, SR Mercury trine SR Jupiter/Ascendant.

With SR Saturn in SR 2 ruling SR 7 and 8, and not doing much of anything.

It still doesn't scream violent death - to me anyway. Though that Mars on the MC and Sun squaring Jupiter/ASC don't really look great.

@Steven: thanks for your very clear explanation

@Kirk

But her vitality was apparently ok. She didn't die of disease. She lived to nearly 22 years old ? she made it through childhood. I think it's appropriate to move beyond 'vitality' as indicated by the Sun. It looks more like an issue involving the ASC and its lord ? something happening to the body rather than in it.

I am starting to think about the concept of 'vitality' also as related to self-destructive behaviours, or the lack thereof. She didn't die of disease, but she did place a definite stress on her body by partying too much that night.

Hi Steven,

Thank you for the reply.

They didn't direct the lord of the Ascendant when determing if and when the life of the native would end_ they directed the Hyleg. That says tons about the significance of the Sun whatever the lord of the Ascendant may be!

I guess you have a good point there! The trouble, then and now, is coming to agreement as to which planet is the hyleg (as we all know). It's so hard to not turn cynical regarding astrology when so much importance is placed on the hyleg yet there is such inconsistency in determining which planet or point qualifies to be it. I just recently came across a couple good examples of 'hyleg madness' on page 1 of the 'Primary Directions and Prediction' thread [http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 10&start=0]:

You wrote:

There is an example in Vettius Valens where he in fact prefered a Moon in the 5th over a Sun in the 9th!

Then Martin wrote concerning determining the hyleg:

But it's hardly a case of Ptolemaeus contra mundum: everyone seems to have had his own twist, and Balbillus (our oldest source for the hyleg technique, and definitely a practising astrologer) actually is not so different from Ptolemy.

Now here I go: These 'twists' are discouraging and can only make a person wonder about the validity of the hyleg. It's hard to take seriously the importance of primary directions involving a position chosen by way of flashy astrological dance steps. In this thread's chart most people would say that the Sun is hyleg (I believe), but the real reason for its influence may simply be the fact that the chart is diurnal. The same goes for your accident-victim client. These two examples may show the importance of the chart luminary, not the hyleg. The lights and the ASC and its lord may provide enough for us to work with. I wouldn't be surprised if all the fancy footwork involving the hyleg merely developed to account for unforeseen events that occurred without warning from a simpler chart reading, as if we humans could or should know it all.

We were perhaps given a warning in the 17th century on page 529 of Lilly's CA that the quest for the hyleg is an elusive and uncertain one, a potential time waster:

I have delivered what the Ancients wrote of the Hyleg, but as yet I rest not satisfied, either how to take the Hyleg aright, or whom most properly to call the Killing, Interficient or Destroying Planet; . . .

Such are my thoughts today, which I like to share from time to time.

My thoughts on Kirk?s thoughts:

I haven?t yet been convinced about methods concerning the hyleg, although I am trying to stay open-minded. ?Trying?, because the idea that one planet can represent the life-force goes against all my instincts. It seems much more logical to me that the ascendant Sun, and Moon are the key elements of bodily form, vitality and energy-flow in every chart, and that any one of these can add strength when fortified or cause decay when afflicted. Of course I can accept a sense of shifting emphasis, but the reduction of the principle to a mathematical formula makes me feel uncomfortable. Life is never that simple. On the other hand, the need for a supported theme has been stressed and Steven writes very persuasively. Sometimes I have to switch off my emotional instincts when I study the techniques of astrology, just as I have learned to switch off my rational instincts when I enter the practice of it. So I shall try to get some more experience before attempting to have an informed opinion.

It is good to see these terms and techniques getting serious attention in astrological discussions.

Sometimes I have to switch off my emotional instincts when I study the techniques of it, just as I have to switch off my rational instincts when I enter the practice of it.

She has done it again! Another Houlding quote to pin on the wall.