Ptolemy, Abu Ali, and Lilly predict the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections

作者：Maria J. Mateus
来源：西洋古典占星杂志：《The Tradition》（节选）
节选内容介绍：该文章是一位Maria J. Mateus的年轻女占星师发表在《The Tradition》杂志上的文章。她用了幽默的标题——Ptolemy, Abu Ali, and Lilly predict the 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections.很通俗易懂即用托勒密、阿布阿里、丽莉这三个著名古占星师的方法预测08大选，评估美国这几年一些总统占星命盘的格局。
一、Ptolemy’s Method: “The Fortune of Rank” (Tetrabiblos, Bk. IV, Ch. III)
Ptolemy’s method for assessing the attainment of high rank in the life basically revolves around the condition of planets termed doryphory, translated by J. M. Ashmand as an attendant, or by Robert Schmidt, as a ‘spear-bearer’. A spear-bearer is a planet performing the role of attending to the two lights, the Sun and Moon. A planet is designated as such when it is either oriental of the Sun, or occidental of the Moon. Oriental of the Sun means rising before the Sun and Occidental to the Moon means rising after the Moon. Ptolemy defines the range of the spear-bearer as being “either in the same signs in which themselves [the lights] are placed, or in the signs next following”. (BK III, Ch.V) Listing the indicators in order of greatest rank attained, we might outline Ptolemy’s method and his interpretations thus:
1. Both lights are angular and in masculine signs or only the sect light is angular but has
all five planets as attendants. [= kings and princes]
2. Both lights are angular and in masculine signs and the attendant planets are also angular or configured with the Midheaven, particularly if the aspects are dexter (i.e. forward in the Zodiac). [= great, powerful, mighty in the world]
3. Only the Sun is in a masculine sign and the Moon is in feminine sign, and either light
is in an angular house, and the attendants are either angular or configured with the
Midheaven. [= chieftains, invested with the sovereignty of life and death]
4. Only the Sun in masculine sign and either is angular, but the attendant stars are not in
angles or configured with the Midheaven.[= enjoy eminence with limited distinction,
such as governors, army commanders,some dignity within priesthood, but not sovereigns.]
5. No lights angular, but most attendant stars are angular or configured with the angles.
[=no eminent rank, but leaders in civil or municipal affairs]
6. No lights angular, and no attendants at orconfigured with angles. [= undistinguished
and without advancement]
7. No lights angular, no attendants angular or configured with angles, plus no light is in
a masculine sign, nor attended by benefics.[=complete obscurity and adversity]
Let’s take a look at the charts. John McCain’s chart has both the Sun and Moon in feminine signs. No scenario fits this situation directly. So Ptolemy says you have to extrapolate a judgment from the condition of the light and the attendants according
to the general logic outlined.
Ptolemy defines ‘the angles’ (The Influence of the
Four Angles, BK I Ch. XIII) in terms of the cardinal directions as they are indicated by the Ascendant,Descendant, Midheaven, and IC points in the chart. In Book III, Ch. XII, in a discussion on length of life, he specifies the angular degrees as: “the angle of the Ascendant, from the 5th degree above the horizon, to the 25th degree below it.” This is a
sort of Equal house division method with a five degree allowance before the pivot (angle). There are other rules for assessing angularity in other Hellenistic authors, but since we’re experimenting with Ptolemy’s model we’ll keep to what can be documented in the Tetrabliblos.
                
                
Thus, in McCain’s chart, the Moon in Capricorn is at an angle, but it has no attendants and is in a feminine sign. It therefore, appears weak in its capacity to attest to high rank. The Sun is not in an angular sign, but we might note that its attendant,Mars, is in a place that he considers strong (in BK III, Ch. XII) because it is in dexter sextile to
the Ascendant sign. Ptolemy states “the species of the dignity may be inferred by observing the peculiar qualities of the attendant stars”. Thus,the authority proceeding from Mars will “consist in commanding armies, in obtaining victories” or “in over-awing the vanquished”. We can certainly see McCain’s authority as a war-hero having been
a major contributor to his political rise. However,Mars is not only not angular, it is only configured with the Ascendant, not with the Midheaven. Thus,we can question whether according to this model,it is powerful enough to attest to the pinnacle of rank in the United States of America.
The only fit we find with Ptolemy’s seven stated criteria is as a slight downgrade of the 4th scenario where instead of a masculine Sun, McCain has a feminine Sun. Given Ptolemy’s interpretation for this scenario, perhaps we can say that McCain might enjoy slightly less distinction than as a governor or an army commander might. Certainly McCain’s attainment of war-hero status was not a product of his commanding any army. Nonetheless, what is troubling, if we are to believe Ptolemy’s method,is that one might argue that McCain’s current rank as a Senator and presidential candidate should argue for a higher rank in the model. As Ptolemy does not state why specifically masculine signs are preferred and because we cannot be 100% certain of the birth time for the chart, it is wiser to refrain from drawing many further conclusions.
Obama’s chart is a bit more obvious. Both the Sun and Moon are in masculine signs and both are within angular regions (we’ll allow the Sun to be half a degree short of Ptolemy’s angularity range).
                
                
That means the lights alone in Obama’s chart meet the criteria for attaining the rank of Kings or Princes. Judging between them, it is the Sun’s essential dignity in its own sign, its bonifying configuration with Jupiter, and in its better house placement (Ptolemy states the 7th is better than the 4th) that makes it the more influential of the two lights. Although the sect light is the Moon, having both angular makes up for the fact that the most
dignified light is the light not of sect.
Furthermore, both lights have attendants: the Sun can count Mercury and Venus as its spear-bearers,with both being configured to the Midheaven and in dexter configuration – Mercury by forward square and Venus by forward trine. Thus, he also meets the criteria to become “great, powerful and mighty in the world”. The Moon can also count Venus as an attendant; and as far as attendants are concerned, Venus has more essential dignity than Mercury, but the latter is at an angle, co-present with a strong Sun, and configured to Jupiter,a benefic influence. Ptolemy says his authority “proceeding from Mercury will be intellectual, superintending education and study, and directing the management of business” and from Venus that it will “be pleasurable”. Given this model, one might expect that Obama’s attainment of rank may benefit from popularity (Venus) and in particular from a fine intellect, excellent oratory abilities, and good business sense (Mercury). As of this date,Obama’s campaign has certainly been remarkable for its excellent financial management and his oratory skills hailed since his first notable speech
at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
                
                
As a point of comparison, we should submit our current president’s chart to this analysis. George W. Bush’s chart data is given as 6th July, 1946, at 7:26 AM in New Haven Connecticut. The data received an ‘AA’ rating because it was quoted by a public relations person who looked up his records at the hospital where he was born. Bush has the Sun in Cancer, a feminine sign, and the Moon in Libra, a masculine sign. The Sun is not angular, as it is located in the twelfth sign,which is considered weak by being cadent and unconnected to the Ascendant. The Moon also has some problems. Although it is in the sign of the IC angle, it is 8° from the pivot, not 5°. In the length of life model, the degrees under the earth are considered incompetent. Thus the critical question one might ask is: how did this man attain one of the most important offices in the free world? One
can explain this by arguing that Bush did not really win the elections because they were disputed, as I have frequently heard invoked when the astrology doesn’t work. But one can also argue that he is currently the President and that an astrology that claims to predict future events should account for it, regardless of the fairness of the outcome. If we are going to understand predictive astrology we need to avoid apologetic logic and look at the
astrology critically.
Let us think about what principles Ptolemy is employing rather than just following the rules
blindly. In both the length of life and the attainment of rank procedures, Ptolemy is concerned with planets at angles or configured with them. In the length of life calculations, he lists the planets at the Midheaven angle as the most powerful
because they form dexter squares to the 1st House sign. He does not consider planets in the twelfth sign because they cannot ‘see’ the first. But in the attainment of status and rank, the emphasis is on configuration with the Midheaven. George Bush’s chart is interesting because at the latitude of New Haven, his Midheaven falls in Aries, the ninth sign from the Ascendant, not the typical tenth. Thus his Sun in Cancer, the sect light of the chart, is in one of the most dynamic configurations with the Midheaven, the square, despite the fact that it is in a cadent house and in a feminine sign. The Sun lacks
any attendants, but it is ruled by and configured to the other light, the Moon in Libra, which is angular and can count Jupiter as an attendant, it too in the northern angle’s sign. Jupiter’s attendance of the Moon argues for patronage and support from
family as key to his prominence in life. What is obvious from Bush’s chart is that a sect light in angular configuration with the Midheaven may be more important than whether it is in a masculine sign, particularly if the other light is in its place,configured with it, and does fit many of the criteria Ptolemy argues for. We might say that the Moon is the backbone for a Sun that is well-placed to attain rank, but in no way suited to it. This appears a good description for the career history of the current president of the United States.
So what are we to take away from Ptolemy’s model? First, we can confirm that the doryphory of the lights appear to be playing a significant role with regard to the manner in which prominence of rank is attained. The role of ‘angularity’ as attesting to a planet’s predominance in the chart is a bit ambiguous because of the different ways in which one can speak of planets at angles. In Valens (Book III, Ch.1) one finds yet another approach. In it, the arc between the Ascendant and Midheaven is trisected and the third part that is in
the post-Ascension to the angle (the region to rise or culminate after the angle) is considered more powerful. The problem with this interpretation is that it flies in the face of what has been demonstrated in the Gauquelin research.4 In that work, thousands of charts on eminent professionals demonstrated statistically that the ‘cadent’ regions of the chart were consistently the areas of most angular power. It is difficult to believe that any
practicing astrologer working with enough charts,particularly one who was working with this topic,would not have noticed that it is planets in the 12th and 9th houses that are most common in eminent charts. As we’ve seen in Bush’s chart, his Sun is most definitely in a cadent position, which is mitigated by the configuration to the Midheaven as we’ve
seen. An Obama win would argue that the light of sect does not necessarily have to be the best placed in the chart for the attainment of highest rank.McCain’s chart is the hardest to reconcile with the attainment of Presidency. Even if we allow for the Sun’s configuration with the Midheaven by sextile,this configuration does not constitute any form of angularity. While the Moon is configured with the Midheaven, it lacks attendants and does not seem able to help the Sun.
The question is whether the Sun’s sextile configuration to the Midheaven with its attendance by Mars is enough to account for his rise to the Senate?
We next turn to the examination of the same topic using an Arabic model. Perhaps this will give us further clues.
二、Abu Ali Al Khayyat’s method:“Testimonies Signifying the Nativities of Kings” (chapter 6)
Abu Ali was an Arabic astrologer of the early 9th century who studied under the famous Jewish astrologer Masha’ Allah. This model comes from his The Judgement of Nativities a copy of which was translated by James Holden and is available in English through the American Federation of Astrologers (AFA).
His model is not presented as a prioritized list of aphorisms, the way Ptolemy’s is. Rather Abu Ali presents a list of different criteria, each of which can equally testify in the chart to the attainment of kingship. Like Ptolemy, Abu Ali also focuses on the lights and on the angles of the chart. But here we have a greater emphasis on the exaltation
of planets, on fixed stars, and orientality. The emphasis on important fixed stars derives from the idea that those who achieved immortality, such as important historical figures might, were placed up in the skies as constellations by the gods.
Here is a summary of Abu Ali’s model that we can work with:
1. The presence of bright fixed stars (magnitude 1 or 2) of a benefic nature, (i.e. of Jupiter or Venus nature) within one degree of the Midheaven degree or to either of the lights,particularly the Sun.
2. For day charts, the Sun in its exaltation sign; or in Midheaven, or in the Ascendant,or rising, or the Ascendant is a royal sign (Leo), with the Lord of the Ascendant in the same sign, or in the Midheaven. For night charts, the Moon in its exaltation sign; or Midheaven, or in the Ascendant or rising, or the Ascendant is a royal sign with the Lord of the Ascendant in the same sign, or in the Midheaven.
3. The Sun in day charts or the Moon in night charts, in the degree of its own exaltation (i.e.Sun 19° Aries, Moon 3° Taurus)4. Sun or Moon applying to Lord of the Ascendant, if in its own exaltation, oriental in any angle.
5. Lord of the Midheaven applying to the Lord of the Ascendant and both in angles, oriental
and in their own exaltations.
6. All planets are applying to Jupiter and it is in the Midheaven, oriental, in its own
exaltations.7. Any other planet in the Midheaven, and it is also oriental and in its own exaltation.
8. The Sun received in the Midheaven, with the Moon in trine aspect to it (the Midheaven).
9. The triplicity Lord of the Ascendant applies to the Lord of the Ascendant.
10. The Lord of the Ascendant is in Midheaven,or oriental in the Ascendant.
11. The dustoria (the doryphyry as in Ptolemy)when they are oriental of Sun, occidental of
Moon, in their own signs of exaltations, the lights also in their own signs/exaltations, in
angles mutually aspecting each other.
                
                
This time we can start with Obama’s chart. The Midheaven is located six minutes from a first magnitude star known as Bungula or as it was anciently called, Toliman, which means “heretofore and hereafter”. It is a binary star located on the left foot of the Centaur. Vivian Robson5 writes of Bungula, “According to Ptolemy, it is of the nature of Venus and Jupiter...it gives beneficence,friends, refinement and a position of honour.”This would be particularly emphasized if located on the Midheaven, normally associated with the
attainment of honour and recognition. Because of its beneficent nature, we may regard Abu Ali’s first criteria for testimony of kingship to be fulfilled. In Obama’s chart we also find that the Lord of the Midheaven, Mars is applying trine to Saturn, the Lord of the Ascendant, but the other conditions do not agree. However, the 9th aphorism does apply:
the triplicity Lord of the Ascendant is Jupiter and it does apply to the Lord of the Ascendant, which is Saturn. It is particularly powerful because it is in the sign of the Ascendant. In the 11th aphorism,Abu Ali, unlike Ptolemy, specifies that the dustoria
must be in their own signs or exaltations. The question of whether one light may be considered a dustoria of the other light is a fair one to pose,as the authors never explicitly state that this is not allowed. However, since Ptolemy does not list any
interpretation for lights as doryphory, one can assume that he is not considering them and that Abu Ali likewise would not consider Obama’s Sun to be a dustoria of the Moon. Venus might also be considered a powerful planet by Traditional rules,since it is both oriental of the Sun and occidental to the Moon and in its house of joy, the 5th House where
it is said to rejoice when posited there. However,since Abu Ali does not explicitly list a planet in its joy as a consideration for kingship and requires that the dustoria of the lights be in their own signs,we shall not give too much consideration to Venus
for this particular topical assessment.
                
                
In McCain’s chart, the fixed star Thuban is 31 minutes from his Sun. It is located in the Draco constellation and not a star of first magnitude.Neither Ptolemy nor Robson speak of Thuban,although Ptolemy considers all the Draco stars to be associated with a Mars/Saturn nature. Only Bernadette Brady gives an interpretation for Thuban, wherein she claims that it represents a protective and hoarding instinct, since the Dragon is a mythological creature associated with the guarding of valuables such as treasures.6 It is difficult to verify this interpretation in McCain’s life – certainly nothing in the mainstream media
would indicate this tendency in his personality.Furthermore, the fact that we are concerned with the life of the native and not the personality gives us another reason to seek a better interpretation for Thuban in McCain’s life. If we return to Ptolemy and to Traditional belief that the Gods immortalized what was placed up in the constellations, it is reasonable to argue that for the ancient astrologer,the fixed stars would have represented some aspect of the native’s life that immortalizes him in some significant way to his people. Ptolemy considered Draco’s stars as being of the nature of Saturn and Mars. In McCain’s life, one finds that his imprisonment (Saturn) for five years during the
Vietnam war (Mars) as a Prisoner of War (POW) fits well as an event which has immortalized him and become extremely important as a source for his popularity and distinction (given that Thuban is with his Sun ) as a politician. Having said this,because the star is not of the nature of Venus and Jupiter, nor is it a 1st magnitude star as Abu Ali requires, we cannot however consider Thuban’s conjunction with McCain’s Sun as a “kingmaker”.
None of the other criteria are present in McCain’s chart. Again here, as in Ptolemy’s method, we find it difficult to explain how McCain would have achieved the status he currently has as Senator. The rationale behind these aphorisms is typically not
explained. We find for example, that the triplicity Lord of McCain’s Ascendant is in its own sign, in applying aspect both to the Sun and to its dustoria,Mars. Yet, why this particular configuration is not considered a testimony of kingship, while number
9 (the triplicity Lord of Ascendant applying to the domicile Lord) above is, remains unexplained.
What happens when we submit George W. Bush’s chart to this model? First, we find that Bush has his Sun within 26 minutes of the fixed star Sirius and 24 minutes from the star Canopus. Sirius,“the Sparkling or Scorching”, is a first magnitude star lying in Canis Major (the Dog Star). It is one of the great stars of the southern skies, known as Sothis and used to mark the start of the Egyptian calendar. According to Robson, the Chinese knew
it as Tseen Land, the Heavenly Wolf and said “that when unusually bright it portended attacks from thieves”. Ptolemy says it is of the nature of Jupiter and Mars and Robson says when together with the Sun, it means “success in business, occupation
connected with metals or other martial affairs,domestic harmony. If rising or culminating, kingly preferment.” Canopus, also a first magnitude star is one of the Oars of the Argo constellation. It was named after the captain of the fleet of Menclaus’
ships, who was killed by the bite of a serpent upon his return from the war with Troy. Ptolemy says it is of the nature of Saturn and Jupiter, and gives,“piety, conservatism, a wide and comprehensive knowledge, voyages and educational work, and changes evil to good.”
 When together with the Sun, it promises “domestic affliction, trouble with father and parents, financial loss, danger of accidents, burns and fevers, unfavourable end to life.” Of the remaining criteria listed by Abu Ali, Bush’s chart also meets the second and the ninth.The Sun is rising and the Ascendant is in the royal sign of Leo.. The Lord of the Ascendant cannot be in the same sign as the Sun because it itself is the Sun,presumably just as adequate to meet the criteria.He also meets the ninth because both triplicity lords of the Ascendant (Jupiter and Saturn) are in applying aspect to its ruler, the Sun, while the third triplicity Lord is the Sun itself.
So far, in both Ptolemy’s and Abu Ali’s approaches we have the indication that George W. Bush and Barack Obama should attain some form of kingship, while John McCain’s chart does not testify to kingship or any attainment of rank higher than some form of governorship.
                
                
三、William Lilly’s Method: “Of the Honours or Dignities of the Native.”(Christian Astrology, Book III, Chapter CXLIIII)
William Lilly is one of the most well-known British astrologers of the 17th century, popularized today as the astrologer who predicted the Great Fire of London. He doesn’t so much have a model as a procedure that examines several standard significators and their overall condition, placing special emphasis upon whether they are angular,in their exaltation signs or in mutual reception of their dignities. In this chapter, Lilly also lists more specific and narrow aphorisms in a paragraph he entitles “For Kingly Genitures observe the succeeding configurations...” The considerations listed here are very limited configurations of three or four planets (typically the lights and the benefics) in Fire signs. Obviously there are many charts of kings who will statistically fall outside of
these narrow parameters. Therefore, it is unlikely that Lilly mentions them as a model for all charts of kings. But it may be the case that he lists these as considerations that if found in a chart, will surely indicate the attainment of kingship for those natives. In other words, they may indicate kings, but not all kings may be indicated by them.
We’ve summarized here the more inclusive criteria Lilly lists and have ignored the narrow “kingly”criteria listed separately. The chart with the greatest number of the overall listed testimonies presumably is the better qualified to attain the highest rank and kingship.
1. The Sun or Moon
• Either light in the exact degree of their exaltation and free from the “infortunes” = makes kings
• Light of chart in its exaltation sign and in the Midheaven, and the Ascendant is
a regal sign, and the light’s dispositor is in the Ascendant or Midheaven = makes
kingly types
• The light of chart is in the degree of the Midheaven and aspected by good
planets
• The dispositors of the Sun, Moon and Ascendant are oriental and in good condition = native shall have great command
2. The Midheaven
• Sun in the 10th, either exalted or in a Jupiter-ruled house
• The Lord of the Midheaven applies to the Lord of the Ascendant, both are oriental and exalted
3. The Ascendant
• Lord of the Ascendant beholds the Sun by trine or sextile, or is oriental and
nearest the Sun, or joined to the Lord of the Midheaven = beloved of kings or
persons of eminence
• Lord of the Ascendant applies to a planet in its exaltation and is in an angle = native
shall exalt himself
• The Lord of the Ascendant in the sign ascending = native rises by his own virtue
4. Fixed Regal Stars of the 1st or 2nd magnitude
• Any of these near the Ascendant or Midheaven, or with the Sun and Moon
Running through the criteria in McCain’s chart we find that neither light is in the degree of its exaltation, nor in its exaltation sign, nor is the light of the chart – the Sun – in the Midheaven degree. The dispositors of the Sun, Moon and Ascendant are also not oriental, therefore, none of the considerations pertaining to the lights apply.Similarly, the considerations pertaining to the Midheaven also do not apply in McCain’s chart.In fact, none of the aphorisms listed here apply to McCain. The only one that comes close is that the Lord of the Ascendant, Venus, is near the Sun, rather than beholding him by trine or sextile. However,she is not oriental as the aphorism requires. Thus,she is probably an unlikely candidate to be of much help according to Lilly on this topic.
                
                
                
                
Obama’s chart has the Moon, which is the light of the chart (it’s a nocturnal chart), in the degree of its exaltation, but not in its sign of exaltation. It’s curious that Lilly mentions the light in the exact degree of its exaltation in the first consideration and the light in the sign of its exaltation in the second. One might deduce from this that he might
be considering partile aspects to the exaltation sign in the first instance and actual placement in the exaltation sign only in the second. But it seems more likely instead that he mentions the two as separate instances because he wants to emphasize the exactness of the exaltation degree in the first case and just assumed its sign as a given. It is
poorly stated, but Lilly basically means that both a light in its exaltation degree and sign anywhere in the chart, and a light just in its exaltation sign (provided it is also meets the additional criteria listed), will result in kingship.
Obama also has a significant fixed star culminating in the degree of his Midheaven. This is the star Bungula or Toliman, which we spoke of in the analysis using Abu Ali’s model. Although Lilly does not explicitly name this star as one of those he considers, he nonetheless allows for bright stars of a beneficent nature that are not explicitly mentioned. This star according to Robson, “gives beneficence, friends, refinement and a position of honour.”
George Bush’s chart also fits none of the criteria exactly as listed, except for the final one. Only the criteria pertaining to the fixed stars can account for his rise to the presidency in Lilly’s considerations.Lilly states that “the two dog stars, Sirius and
Procyon arising with the Sun or culminating with him, gives Kingly preferment.” Bush, as was seen in Abu Ali’s model, has Sirius rising with his Sun.Robson also states that if rising or culminating with the Sun gives “kingly preferment”.
四、Methodological Conclusions
This exercise was meant to take a non-biased approach to the charts in order to lead us to a conclusion as to whether McCain or Obama would emerge victorious in November. Looking back at the three models examined, some encouraging and troubling conclusions emerge. On the one hand, it is encouraging to see that all the models are more or less consistent in their indications that both Obama and Bush’s charts argue for some form of “kingship”. McCain ranks consistently last in all three assessments, often not fitting any criteria for kingship at all. What is troubling is that by the standards of these three methods, it is difficult to see how McCain could even have attained the high ranking position of Senator. It is entirely possible that Traditional models of kingship
were designed to target those life circumstances that lead individuals of the ancient and medieval worlds to become kings – namely, nobility, power, wealth, social class, and public honours. Getting elected into the highest office in the Unites States
today may depend entirely upon different factors, including and perhaps most importantly, the ability to gain (and often purchase) the media’s favour and attention, a circumstance unlikely to have been considered in ancient considerations.McCain’s misfortunes during the Vietnam War may have placed him into the very circumstances,which in another era might never have led to kingship. Technically, while all the methods rely on the same principal significators – the lights, the Midheaven, the Ascendant and some combination thereof – each appear to approach the problem from their own internal logic. Unfortunately,knowledge of that internal logic is assumed and never explicitly described by the authors. We are simply told what factors to consider – not why.Why, for example, is the ruler of the Ascendant beholding the Sun equivalent to the ruler being oriental to the Sun? Why does Ptolemy consider the lights and doryphory and not the fixed stars? If one candidate’s chart has a clear angular light with attendants also at an angle (as in Ptolemy), but
another has a prominent fixed star with a light at an angle (as in Lilly and Abu Ali) which would come out ahead? We don’t get a sense from reading the texts that any methods-testing that the astrologers of antiquity engaged in would have had the result of supplanting prior Tradition. Rather, it seems more likely that any configurations observed in kingly charts would have been added to prior Tradition.Lilly himself delivers “aphorisms which antiquity has delivered unto us”9 concerning the topic. This then suggests that the list of considerations in any one author may in fact be compilations from comparative chart observations.
To be sure, Traditional astrology contains many rules for interpretation and they are quite helpful.But what we lack is a clearer understanding of the larger interpretative context that underlies the choice to focus on these particular factors for this topic. Without it we cannot for example say unequivocally that the reason Obama may attain kingship over McCain is because of his great oratory skill, despite the fact that Mercury is a principal factor in Ptolemy’s assessment of his chart. Mercury in the 6th House could, for example,equally represent the negotiation of health care during an Obama presidency as his greatest success while in office or even in his bid for the office. In such a case, it would just be a descriptor of the type of success he might have in high office,but not necessarily a guarantor for attaining it.In other words, the current topical approach tells
us that Mercury is significant with regard to his status, but it does not tell us specifically how or in what context. Nevertheless, what we may take away from this analysis is a greater sense that despite the differences in approach, the attainment of high rank may generally be dependent upon the ability.
to carry the light of the Sun or Moon to the angles
or their rulers, either through other well-positioned
attendants or dispositors. In addition, the fixed stars
may play a particularly important role with regard
to this topic because of their ability to indicate the
celebrity or notoriety that is translated from the life
into the cultural mythology.