tsmall
Premium Member
I've asked about this in a couple of other forums and have yet to receive a definitive answer. The best I got, as always, were conflicting opinions as to whether or not it was even possible for planets other than the Moon to be wild, especially in natal charts.
The parameters for a feral planet differ depending on which authority, and age of astrology we choose to look at. Morin seems to be the only one I have found reference to who attempted to offer a way to delineate a feral planet.
Here is a chart in which the Sun appears to be feral. We have Sun in Cancer in the 12th with Leo rising. Mars is in Sagittarius in the 5th, intercepted. Moon in Aquarius as Sun's ruler pretty tightly applying to the descendant. Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter are all in Gemini in the 11th (also intercepted.)
The Sun's last aspect would have been a conjunction with Jupiter.
***Mistake. Sun's last aspect was the prenatal lunation which was an opposition to the Moon in Capricorn.***
However, as this is a natal chart, the Sun is completely unaspected. So the question is, are we indeed looking at a feral Sun? And if not, why? I can only think of two reasons. The first would be that since Sun is <barely> still within orb of of Jupiter if you use 17* for the Sun, then technically Sun is not unaspected, and certainly wasn't unaspected when it entered Cancer.
The second way was proposed by a friend, and involves the Moon, and why it was important to consider phasis in natal charts. In trying to understand why some traditional astrologers today say that only the Moon can be wild, yet faced with a chart in which this didn't appear to be the case...Moon will aspect the Sun within 7 days of the nativity, in this case by trine once Moon gets to Pisces.
Opinions?
The parameters for a feral planet differ depending on which authority, and age of astrology we choose to look at. Morin seems to be the only one I have found reference to who attempted to offer a way to delineate a feral planet.
will act simply in accordance with its own nature...[and] indicates something unusual--good or ill--depending on the nature of the planet
Here is a chart in which the Sun appears to be feral. We have Sun in Cancer in the 12th with Leo rising. Mars is in Sagittarius in the 5th, intercepted. Moon in Aquarius as Sun's ruler pretty tightly applying to the descendant. Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter are all in Gemini in the 11th (also intercepted.)
The Sun's last aspect would have been a conjunction with Jupiter.
***Mistake. Sun's last aspect was the prenatal lunation which was an opposition to the Moon in Capricorn.***
However, as this is a natal chart, the Sun is completely unaspected. So the question is, are we indeed looking at a feral Sun? And if not, why? I can only think of two reasons. The first would be that since Sun is <barely> still within orb of of Jupiter if you use 17* for the Sun, then technically Sun is not unaspected, and certainly wasn't unaspected when it entered Cancer.
The second way was proposed by a friend, and involves the Moon, and why it was important to consider phasis in natal charts. In trying to understand why some traditional astrologers today say that only the Moon can be wild, yet faced with a chart in which this didn't appear to be the case...Moon will aspect the Sun within 7 days of the nativity, in this case by trine once Moon gets to Pisces.
Opinions?
Attachments
Last edited: