Jane Griscti wrote:
One chart I'd like to propose for further study is that of Jack Paar
, his chart data is classed as AA on Astrodatabank
. I've always found him an interesting character and I find his chart no less so.
Sounds good to me. After reading the short bios on Paar, I agree that he would make an interesting example.
Jane Griscti wrote:It has a number of interesting features: 4 planets in the Bull in the 4th whole sign house, 2 planets in domicile, Aphrodite in the Bull and Ares in the Ram, no planets retrograde, tetragonal or diametrical.
4 planets in the Bull in the 4th Whole Sign house? I have 25 portions of the Goat-Horned rising, which would make the Bull planets the 5th Whole Sign house, wouldn't it?
Jane Griscti wrote:The stellium in the Bull brings up an interesting question. There is an example of attachment by adherence with Helios at 11 Taurus and Aphrodite at 12 Taurus and neighbouring as both planets are in the confines of Hermes.
Are Helios and Aphrodite in an adherence
? I was under the impression that attachment by adherence
takes place only when the faster moving planet approaches (applies to) the slower moving planet. In this case Aphrodite is flowing forth
from the adherence
with Helios. If this is so, does the neighboring
condition still hold if the planets involved are separating? Or is this a case of neighboring
, but not necessarily watching over
(which I believe is restricted to application?)
Jane Griscti wrote:However, at the same time, the adherence appears to be part of an enclosure of Helios as Ares is positioned at 27 Aries and there is no intervention.
I don't think there is enclosure
in this example. While it is true that Ares lies on one side, Kronos is not on the other side...
Which brings up an interesting supposition - is there mixed enclosure
, which mixes the presence of malefics and benefics?
And does not Selene intervene with a ray (taking for the moment the bracketing of Helios by Ares and Aphrodite?)
Jane Griscti wrote:But I can't recall any examples in the text or in the CD Intensive that provide a principal for identifying or delineating overlapping scenarios.
I suppose that's where we as astrologers come in - when things get messy and interesting!
Jane Griscti wrote:Zeus and Hermes, in the same stellium, provide an example of concourse being in the same image, as do Aphrodite and Zeus, being less than 15 portions between them but more than 3.
Again, is there concourse
when the bodily conjunction is separating? In this case, Hermes has dropped off or disengaged quite some time before...
I would agree that Aphrodite and Zeus are in concourse
Jane Griscti wrote:As well, the entire stellium is configured with Selene, the Exaltation lord of the Bull, who sits at 14 portions of the Virgin. She is in a trigonal engagement (within 3 portions) with Helios, Aphrodite and Zeus; technically flowing forth from Helios and Aphrodite; and in a trigonal testimony relation with Hermes. I believe the figural conjunctions with Helios, Aphrodite and Zeus constitute examples of bonification; Selene being a natural benefic.
Again, does bonification
hold when the figure is separating? Otherwise, I would agree with your statments here.
Jane Griscti wrote:Selene is also in a hexagonal testimony relation with Kronos who is at 24 Cancer, making Selene the domicile lord of Kronos as well. Aphrodite and Helios are also in a hexagonal testimony relation with Kronos while Ares is slipping aside from a tetragonal engagement with him. The hexagon between Zeus and Kronos does not perfect and Hermes has completed his hexagon with Kronos and already slipped aside (there are more than 3 portions between them).
However, thinking a bit deeper, does the faster moving planet slip aside
... or does the slower moving planet slip aside
? Bear with me here...
In the figures between the bodily conjunction and the diameter, I get the impression that it is the slower moving planet that initiates symbolic action by extending the right hand
. After the figure perfects, it is the faster moving planet that initiates action by flowing forth
In the figures between the diameter and the bodily conjunction, the reverse is suggested. It is the faster moving planet now that initiates the figure by overcoming (recall that in the first half of the cycle it is the slower moving planet that seems to initiate action during application.) Following this logic then, in slipping aside
it would be the slower moving planet that initiates action by slipping aside
, thereby allowing the faster moving planet to proceed.
This scheme incorporates the symmetry that seems to be a hallmark of Hellenistic aspect theory, in my opinion.
Jane Griscti wrote:
What I find interesting is that Selene's relations with the stellium and Kronos are all based on the 1st half of the synodic cycle while the Ares and stellium planets relationship with Kronos are all based on the 2nd half of the synodic cycle. My hope is that, given the distribution of the planets and the lack of retrogradation in the chart, it might be useful in trying to come up with some clear idea of how events from two halves of the synodic cycle differ, or not, in their display. If you spot any misapplication of the rules governing planetary configurations or any relationships I missed, feel free to point them out
I agree. There must be some subtle distinctions that must be teased out from the nativity. I suspect that Kronos' involvement here might contribute to Paar's emotional prickliness, which in turn marked his reputation. Of course, Kronos is in anti-domicile, pivotal in the 7th place and is also the malefic contrary to sect, so he is not in the least inclined to be cooperative...