Concerning the number and gender of children and brothers

petosiris

Banned
Jupiter, Venus and Mercury are indicative of fine offspring, but Saturn and Mars signify the lamenting of children or childlessness.
Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces - Fertile - The Crab, the Scorpion and the Fishes are prolific creatures.
Leo, Aquarius, Aries - Semi-Infertile - The Lion, the Water-Pourer and the Ram are not prolific creatures, and their rulers are not indicative of children.
Virgo, Sagittarius, Capricorn - Infertile - The Maiden, the Archer and the Goat-Horned One are not associated with fertility, the latter because they are enigmatic and unintelligible.
Libra, Taurus, Gemini - Semi-Fertile - The Bull because of the Pleaides and Venus, the Scales because of its human nature and Venus, and the Twins because of its human nature and Mercury.

Angular and to a lesser extent operative images give children, but also gives them distinction, if the ruler of the lot is the most well placed star in the nativity, it signifies that the children become more distinguished than the native, but if the opposite, they do not. Judge the same for brothers (and the lots of the father and the mother) Inoperative images take away children or signify childlessness. Saturn promising children gives them adopted, while double-bodied images predominating an area signify twins, children from different affairs and half-siblings.

1. Concerning the number of children and siblings we first examine whether Jupiter, Venus and Mercury are well-placed.
If they are all angular, they grant two children and two brothers, if operative they grant one child and one brother, if inoperative none.

2. Concerning the number of children we then examine the place of affairs, measured from Jupiter to Venus, but if Jupiter is inoperative while Venus is operative, we measure from Venus to Jupiter.
Fertile images grant 3 children, semi-fertile - 2, semi-infertile - 1, infertile - 0. Aspects by Jupiter and Venus give children. Conjunction, square or opposition by Saturn or Mars take away children or they signify childlessness. Examine also the ruler.

3. Concerning the number of children we then examine the culminating image.
Fertile images and semi-fertile signify 1 child, but semi-infertile or infertile none. Aspects by Jupiter and Venus give children. Conjunction, square or opposition by Saturn or Mars take away children or they signify childlessness. Examine also the ruler.

4. Concerning the number of brothers we then examine the place of brothers, measured from Mercury to Jupiter, but if Mercury is inoperative while Jupiter is operative, we measure from Jupiter to Mercury.
Fertile images grant 3 brothers, semi-fertile - 2, semi-infertile - 1, infertile - 0. Aspects by Jupiter and Venus give brothers. Conjunction, square or opposition by Saturn or Mars take away brothers or they signify no brothers. Examine also the ruler.

5. Concerning the number of brothers we then examine the rising image.
Fertile images and semi-fertile signify 1 brother, but semi-infertile or infertile none. Aspects by Jupiter and Venus give brothers. Conjunction, square or opposition by Saturn or Mars take away brothers or they signify no brothers. Examine also the ruler.

6. Concerning the gender of children, the rulers and the stars in aspect, the midheaven and the lot in masculine images give male children, but in feminine images, they give female children. The predominating gender will be true for one and two children, sometimes for three, rarely for four unless all indications are of one gender or there are many children indicated. If the indications are mixed for even numbers, judge equal number of each gender.

7. Concerning the gender of siblings, the rulers and the stars in aspect, the ascendant and the lot in masculine images give brothers, but in feminine images, they give sisters.
The predominating gender will be true for one and two siblings, sometimes for three, rarely for four unless all indications are of one gender or there are many siblings indicated. If the indications are mixed for even numbers, judge equal number of each gender.

Example 1 - Libra Rising, Moon with Libra, Saturn and Jupiter with Capricorn, Mercury and the Sun with Aquarius, Venus with Aries, Mars with Gemini. Fortune with Aquarius and the prenatal Full Moon with Leo. Siblings - Virgo, Children - Capricorn. He has one sister, two sons and one daughter for:
1. - 1
2. - 0
3. - 2
4. - 0
5. - 0
6. - Moon, Venus, (Sun, Mercury and Mars have minor influence) placement
7. - Virgo, Jupiter, (Saturn and the Moon on the ascendant?)

Example 2 - 2 children - https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Bowie,_David
1 - 1
2 - 0
3 - 1

Example 3 – 5 children - https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Trump,_Donald
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 2

Example 4 - 0 children - https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Pope_Francis_I. , Pisces is the sign of papacy
1 - notice all infertile signs
2 - notice the placement and opposition of the ruler, the person is able to have children, but is celibate
3 - notice the opposition of Mars
Saturn is the Master of the Nativity.

Example 5 - 0 children – https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Pope_Benedict_XVI , Virgo, Pisces and Gemini are the signs of priests
1 - Mercury exchanges rays with Mars and Venus is opposed to Saturn
2 - notice the opposition of Saturn from the place of occupation
3 - notice the conjunction of Saturn
In any case, the occupation, the length of life and universals can change those signs. This is why having a natal theory and hierarchy is one of the good ideas by Ptolemy.*

Example 6 - 0 children - https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Monroe,_Marilyn
1 - 1
2 - 0
3 - 0

And so on.

Example 7 - 7 children – https://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Heisenberg,_Werner
1 - 1
2 – 5 (including twins because of Gemini)
3 – 1

Mercury is making a heliacal rising and is angular with a fertile image. He had one marriage (because Scorpio is a solid sign) and 7 children, 2 of which twins on account of the placement of the Lot and the fertile sign of the Scorpion.

He also met his wife and married at the exact rising time of sidereal Gemini - 35.25 years. Gemini and Scorpio are like-ascending (contra-antiscia) - sharing similar rising times, so they are also sympathetic.

We use the 129 years with the ruler of affairs, we allot 20 years to Mercury (ruler of Gemini) and then 19 years to the Sun, but let say the marriage would occur on secondary distribution of the benefics:
We divide the Sun's 19 Egyptian years of 365 days into 129 parts:
Sun - 1021.43410853
Moon - 1343.99224806
Saturn - 1612.79069768
Jupiter - 645.11627907
Mars - 806.395348838
Venus - 430.07751938
Mercury - 1075.19379845

So he married in the chronocratorship of Venus and had twins born in the chronocratorship of Mercury, a remarkable coincidence that the beneficial Jupiter square Moon (12 + 25) is also activated at the time.

Mercury no doubt is significant of the intelligence of his children as well - two being distinguished scientists. The stars and images that are the same and indicative of the native, brothers and children are related to heredity or the environment.

Hellenistic lots:
Lot of Siblings - Saturn to Jupiter by day, Jupiter to Saturn by night
Lot of Children - Jupiter to Saturn by day, Saturn to Jupiter by night
Valens also has separate ones for sons and daughters, the latter by day is the same as mine I believe, as is the lot of marriage, but by night.
Some astrologers use V for children (Ptolemy and Valens also mention IV and XI by derivatives) and III for siblings (usually along with I).
I encourage everyone to compare those houses and lots in the two zodiacs and decide for himself what works best. I personally can't take seriously using 4 houses.
The first sentence is mentioned by Ptolemy, Valens and Petosiris (cited in Valens), although Ptolemy says evening star Mercury takes away children as well (which I believe influenced the latter medieval approach that saw Gemini as barren because of Mercury). For the fertile and barren, I made a compromise between various authors. Double-bodied signifying half-brothers is from Rhetorius. Saturn signification is according to variety of authors. Example of one adopted son - https://horoscopes.astro-seek.com/c...de_aspects=1&redraw_button=Redraw#tabs_redraw

*I use the following division of natal theory and I usually delineate the chart in the following order (I do 1. for myself in order to be careful with predictions).
1. Length of Life (including vitality and distinction, without it, any prediction is impossible)
2. Appearance (physical appearance/personality, which is important for knowing whether the ascendant is correct)
3. Household (the lineage included, events before birth, but also important along lifetime as well - livelihood and property)
4. Parents (events before birth have effect on how you delineate the chart in the end)
5. Brothers (events around birth, examine the I and II for childhood in general)
6. Action (education and occupation)
7. Affairs (after birth, and many times they come as result of occupation, or they do not as we see in some cases)
8. Children (after affairs)
9. Friendship (important, but not as the previous)
10. Travel (noticeable topic)
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned

"....Saturn puts into one's hands the fathership of others’ children...."
THE ANTHOLOGY Vettius Valens :smile:
Book 1 page 1
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf

I do not remember any case encountering a Hellenistic author saying that barren sign on the ascendant signifies infertility, as recently cited a few times on the forum. If one has such interpretation, I will welcome sharing it, but I think that children is a separate topic from the native, which is based on affair, so it is not directly tied to the native, but also to the partner. This is why I personally prefer to use one lot for both. While the number of children is sometimes heavily tied with the reproductive system of the native (and thus suited to the medical branch of astrology), more often than not the number of children depends on economic, social, cultural, religious and other factors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg. As with celibacy occupations, it may be worth looking into both. Ptolemy and Rhetorius mention it being an impossibility to number the siblings as people in ancient times had a lot of children - the summarist of Rhetorius mentions a mother of 24 children in Byzantium, so he says it is safer to declare many siblings instead of a particular number. Today you do not have that problem.

The V was associated with children probably because they continue the lineage - the V represents the time after death or with the joy of Venus, or with both.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I do not remember any case encountering a Hellenistic author saying that barren sign on the ascendant signifies infertility, as recently cited a few times on the forum. If one has such interpretation, I will welcome sharing it, but I think that children is a separate topic from the native, which is based on affair, so it is not directly tied to the native, but also to the partner. This is why I personally prefer to use one lot for both. While the number of children is sometimes heavily tied with the reproductive system of the native (and thus suited to the medical branch of astrology), more often than not the number of children depends on economic, social, cultural, religious and other factors - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#/media/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg. As with celibacy occupations, it may be worth looking into both. Ptolemy and Rhetorius mention it being an impossibility to number the siblings as people in ancient times had a lot of children - the summarist of Rhetorius mentions a mother of 24 children in Byzantium, so he says it is safer to declare many siblings instead of a particular number. Today you do not have that problem.

The V was associated with children probably because they continue the lineage - the V represents the time after death or with the joy of Venus, or with both.
Interesting that even today in countries such as Italy and Ireland :smile:
where religious factors remain strong amongst Catholics
it is possible to find large families of many children
 

waybread

Well-known member
I have some difficulty with the idea of applying Hellenistic methods to women's fertility today, although some of the methods seem opaque enough. It is more that demography in all but the poorest nations today has changed dramatically since ancient times. Yet the planets and signs are doing the same things today that they did in ancient times.

It's hard to know where to begin, and if you already know about the demographic transition from a social science class, forgive me. But basically:

1. From ancient times through about 1740 CE or so, societies were characterized by high birth and death rates. A lot of the deaths were due to infant mortality. Women had multiple births where the babies didn't survive. Maternal nutrition probably wasn't as good as it is today, and there were no medical fertility treatments like we have today. So populations didn't tend to grow a whole lot.

2. In the mid-18th century, beginning in England, the death rate began to drop, due to a combination of factors: new technologies, more imported food, introduction of soap (hygiene measures,) &c. A drop in infant mortality meant that more children survived to reproductive age, so populations began to rise.

This pattern was repeated internationally as countries entered the agricultural and industrial revolutions, first in Europe but now globally for developed nations. (Cf. the "population explosion.")

3. As more children survived into adulthood, parents began to voluntarily limit their family size, even prior to the introduction of modern birth control. So the birth rate began to drop. Children were an asset for non-mechanized farm labour, but not so much in urban industrialized societies. (Rural-to-urban migration, and the growth of cities.)

This process is more or less complete in the West, and in industrialized Asian countries. Then there is or was China's one child policy. In "developing" countries like India, the birth rate has fallen over time, but is still above ZPG.

4. With improvements in health care, nutrition, and increasing income, death rates began to drop. Instead of ancient countries' patterns of high birth and death rates, developed nations are characterized by low birth and death rates, with replacement values often below ZPG. Women with difficulty conceiving, however, now have a range of medical interventions available.

One thing I'm not clear about from the Hellenistic descriptions of fertility, however, is how or whether they included infants who died at birth or shortly thereafter. Today, in developed countries, infant mortality rates are extremely low. (The US being a political anomaly.) But any country undergoing the demographic transition would have had a period of high birth rates and lowering infant mortality, leading to baby booms. Yet today, with modern birth control methods, most mothers in developed countries have very few children.

Yet the planets and signs haven't done different things, have they?

I don't know who associated fertility with the rising sign. Traditionally I'd look at a woman's 5th house and the moon, with Venus and Jupiter being helpful factors.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Also, we would assume that the distribution of planets in signs today is roughly the same around the globe, yet we find dramatically different birth rates between the countries of central Africa (high) and northern Europe (low.) Interestingly, France has a somewhat higher birth rate than its neighbours, probably due to very pro-natalist government policies that support young families, as well as immigration from African societies with higher birth rates.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
One thing I'm not clear about from the Hellenistic descriptions of fertility, however, is how or whether they included infants who died at birth or shortly thereafter.

They did include them. Ptolemy himself tells us:

''Now, the donative planets, when they are merely in such a position and are by themselves, give single offspring, but if they are in bicorporeal and feminine signs, and similarly if they are in the fecund signs, such as Pisces, Scorpio, and Cancer, they give two or even more... If the maleficent planets overcome them, or if they are found in sterile places, such as Leo or Virgo, they give children, but for no good nor for any length of time.'' - Tetr. 4.6. Robbins translation http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/4B*.html#6

I wrote my post with modern day in mind. A lot of authors assign either child mortality or childlessness to the malefics, so you can include both. As long as you are able to judge, as I remarked, today it is easier to implement those properties/techniques as the number is drastically lower, regardless of length of life increase.

''He will not have many children; his partners will be barren or conceive only with difficulty, and if they do conceive, they will miscarry. Apply similar reasoning to female nativities'' - Valens, http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf

Apply the same logic as they did.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Also, we would assume that the distribution of planets in signs today is roughly the same around the globe, yet we find dramatically different birth rates between the countries of central Africa (high) and northern Europe (low.) Interestingly, France has a somewhat higher birth rate than its neighbours, probably due to very pro-natalist government policies that support young families, as well as immigration from African societies with higher birth rates.

1) All charts in central Africa have higher fertility placements than those in Europe.

Yet the planets and signs haven't done different things, have they?

2) Universal significations have to be accounted for. Therefore if many children are promised in Europe, one would say 4, but in central Africa - 8.

In any case, the occupation, the length of life and universals can change those signs.

It is possible they do different things depending on the chart, but as with benefic and malefic, the fertile will tend to give children, while the infertile not, as a rule of thumb.

3) Modern astrology has some better method?
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Well, there's always the question of "a lot" vs. "a few" but when we get into specific numbers, we get into some demographic problems. Like how higher ages of marriage for women and education of girls demographically relate to lower fertility rates, even without reference to the stars. To really explain lower or higher family size, you kind of have to understand how populations work.

If you look at these data from the World Bank, you can see how some developed countries (including Italy, Korea, Japan, Greece, Moldova, Singapore, China under the "one child" policy) kind of throw Ptolemy's theory out the window. When the number of births per woman is under 1.5, for example, that means a majority of child bearing women are not having two or more children. They are having one child. Yet the heavens their horoscopes aren't doing anything differently than horoscopes did in the past.

Similarly, with the sex of children. You are aware of the big problem of missing girls in India and China. Some expectant parents learn the sex of the unborn child, and then abort unwanted girl fetuses. 20 or so years of this process later, the surplus of males has caused a lot of social problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women

Of course, in Ptolemy's day, unwanted babies were delivered, but simply exposed after birth, sometimes on rubbish heaps. Hence his section on "children who are not reared."
 

petosiris

Banned
This is ridiculous. Of course the signs and planets are signifying the same thing as in the past. Times and the heavens have signified the change in empires and cities. (This is known as the hierarchy of mundane astrology, natal astrology and event astrology) Therefore the signs and planets operate under those new universal significations. Fertile and infertile signs are the same as yesterday, they show different numbers of children, regardless of the exact number.

We are in the traditional forum. People are still having babies (or having difficulty with having). You also do not offer any alternative method for estimating this?

Of course, in Ptolemy's day, unwanted babies were delivered, but simply exposed after birth, sometimes on rubbish heaps. Hence his section on "children who are not reared."

Are you sure all ancient societies did this? Or just Greek and Roman? I know of certain cases today with some minorities. His section includes also infants who do not survive into childhood because of disease and monsters (what is know today as birth defects from genetic and chromosomal disorders). Today, the exposure or infanticide of the latter usually gets less years in custody or it may be legally practiced in some countries. http://www.cbc-network.org/2006/03/...he-netherlands-follows-in-germanys-footsteps/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia - Notice it is still present in Europe today. This argument from emotion is not well-placed here and just show that you are wrong that there is something new under the Sun. If you want to debate the accuracy of traditional astrology for the modern day, please open a new thread on that topic. I do not go around every thread on the modern astrology forum offering sarcastic remarks about modern delineations.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Well, there's always the question of "a lot" vs. "a few" but when we get into specific numbers, we get into some demographic problems. Like how higher ages of marriage for women and education of girls demographically relate to lower fertility rates, even without reference to the stars. To really explain lower or higher family size, you kind of have to understand how populations work.

If you look at these data from the World Bank, you can see how some developed countries (including Italy, Korea, Japan, Greece, Moldova, Singapore, China under the "one child" policy) kind of throw Ptolemy's theory out the window. When the number of births per woman is under 1.5, for example, that means a majority of child bearing women are not having two or more children. They are having one child. Yet the heavens their horoscopes aren't doing anything differently than horoscopes did in the past.

Similarly, with the sex of children. You are aware of the big problem of missing girls in India and China. Some expectant parents learn the sex of the unborn child, and then abort unwanted girl fetuses. 20 or so years of this process later, the surplus of males has caused a lot of social problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women

Of course, in Ptolemy's day, unwanted babies were delivered, but simply exposed after birth, sometimes on rubbish heaps. Hence his section on "children who are not reared."
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose :smile:
example from a Traditional astrology discussion thread
at
https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46808
4. I think there is a rational problem, as well.
How good are any of these methods in predicting mass deaths,
where the deaths of hundreds or even thousands of people are nearly simultaneous?
If a jumbo jet blows up (cf. the Lockerbie, Scotland crash), if thousands of people
are swept away by a tsunami
(as has happened in recent years in Southeast Asia and Japan)
or when atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
it just beggers credulity to think that
each of these victims' alcocodens and hylegs got simultaneously activated.
ninety thousand people perished in Hiroshima
and
approximately seventy four thousand people died in Nagasaki
a combined total of one hundred and sixty four thousand natal charts to analyze
- including verification of time of birth.
Clearly then a belief or disbelief that 'each of these victim's alcocodens and hylegs
got simultaneously activated'
is neither provable nor disprovable
.
That's because no one has delineated every single one
of all of those one hundred and sixty four thousand charts
simply because the data no longer exists having been vaporised in nine seconds
by the Atomic blast of Weapons of Mass Destruction


CLEARLY

THE FAR MORE IMPORTANT SALIENT FACTOR :smile:
is as follows:
all one hundred and sixty four thousand people
DID have one thing in common
i.e.
THEY WERE ALL LOCATED IN A CITY ON WHICH AN ATOMIC BOMB WAS DROPPED.

Olivia quoted as follows:

Clearly, all these people DID have one thing in common i.e.
THEY WERE ALL LOCATED
IN A CITY ON WHICH AN ATOMIC BOMB WAS DROPPED.

then highlighted that
as the key

i.e.


And that is the key right there


not analysing 90,000 charts for hylegs, alchocodens, primary directions
that could have prematurely cut the alchocodens' years short, etc. etc
.

Taking a page from Avraham the Spaniard, otherwise known as ibn Ezra, one of the first things he tells astrologers is that astrology does not contravene natural law. He also explains that a personal chart falls under quite a hierarchy of other considerations. From Nativities and Revolutions:

...The third way is the rule that comes from the effect of the Great Conjunction on each country. Thus, if within the influence of the Conjunction upon the nations war is supposed to befall a certain nation, even if many of those born in it do not have an indication of death by the sword in their nativities, when the time for war for that country comes, they will all be killed....

There's quite a lot more, but no need to quote all of it, one hopes.
I agree that ibn Ezra sums up the matter :smile:

- particularly

QUOTE:
'......even if many of those born in it
do not have an indication of death by the sword in their nativities
when the time for war for that country comes, they will all be killed....'

and so obviously
as petosiris has indicated
MUNDANE ASTROLOGY SUPERCEDES NATAL ASTROLOGY
i.e.
Traditional Astrology is hierarchical
i.e.
to be clear then
regarding WBs theory that Chinas "one-child policy"
"throws Ptolemys theories out the window"
clearly
those resident in China are
collectively
subject to the
MUNDANE ASTROLOGY ISSUE
of being allowed to have only one child

clearly then
WBs objection is flawed
because extraneous to Traditional Natal Astrology
however
IF WB wishes to compare and contrast Western Modernist with Traditional methodology
then as petosiris rightly mentions
the appropriate place to do so is on a separate thread
for example on our GENERAL FORUM


 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Meanwhile
on the topic
concerning the number & gender of children & brothers
:smile:

An interesting case is that of Nadya Suleman
Birthname Natalie Denise Suleman
born 11 July 1975 at 21:59 (= 9:59 PM )
Place Fullerton, California, 33n52, 117w55
Timezone PDT h7w (is daylight saving time)
Data source BC/BR in hand
Rodden Rating AA
Collector: Taglilatelo

American mother of fourteen children
all born via invitro fertilization and implantation.
She delivered octuplets in January 2009.
It was later revealed that she was a single mom with six children at home
and she and her brood lived with her own mother.
The six older children were ages seven, six, five, three and two-year-old twins
at the time the octuplets were born.
When asked why she wanted such a big family
Nadya responded that she had grown up lonely, an only child
and always wanted a large family of her own
Suleman married 1996 but was unable to conceive
because of scarring and fibroid tumors.
An ectopic pregnancy wreaked additional havoc so she began working double shifts
on her job as an aide in a psychiatric hospital to pay for her IVF treatements (in vitro fertilization).
Injured in an on-the-job accident, she went on disabilty and suffered depression
and her marriage broke up.
She says she asked a friend to donate sperm
and continued to undergo IVF treatments.
On 18 May 2001, Nadya gave birth to a baby boy, her first child, named Elijah.
A daughter named Amerah followed in June 2002.
Joshua arrived August 2003.
She had gone back to school and began studying psychology, living on a small inheritance
student loans and her disability checks.
Continuing her IVF treatments, she delivered Aidan in 2005
then twins Calyssa and Caleb in 2006.
She says she wanted to use all the embryos created from her eggs
and the last implantation resulted in the octuplets
.

attached chart calculated at
https://horoscopes.astro-seek.com/traditional-astrology

Ascendant is very early Aquarius
however
even if Ascendant is in fact Capricorn
ascendant ruler remains Saturn
Ascendant ruler Saturn is in GEMINI
aka the Twins - a Semi-Fertile sign
because of its human nature and Mercury

VALENS in THE ANTHOLOGY states:

"....Saturn puts into one's hands the fathership of others’ children...."
THE ANTHOLOGY Vettius Valens :smile:
Book 1 page 1
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf

Nadya has said that her husband refused to donate sperm for IVF
so Nadya asked a friend to donate sperm instead
so Nadyas children are not those of her husband
from whom she is now divorced

Part of Fortune is in SAGITTARIUS
ruler JUPITER is in 10th Fortune House in own domicile PISCES
Sagittarius = man and horse = bi-corporeal aka double bodied
Pisces= two fishes = bi-corporeal double bodied FERTILE sign
Sun Saturn & Mercury are in 7th Fortune House
VALENS says of MERCURY:

This star’s effects go in many directions
depending on the changes of the zodiac
and the
interactions of the stars
and yields quite varied results

Moon & Venus are in 5th Fortune House





 

Attachments

  • SULEMAN OCTOMUM NADYA.jpg
    SULEMAN OCTOMUM NADYA.jpg
    58.1 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Meanwhile
on the topic
concerning the number & gender of children & brothers
:smile:

An interesting case is that of Nadya Suleman
Birthname Natalie Denise Suleman
born 11 July 1975 at 21:59 (= 9:59 PM )
Place Fullerton, California, 33n52, 117w55
Timezone PDT h7w (is daylight saving time)
Data source BC/BR in hand
Rodden Rating AA
Collector: Taglilatelo

American mother of fourteen children
all born via invitro fertilization and implantation.
She delivered octuplets in January 2009.
It was later revealed that she was a single mom with six children at home
and she and her brood lived with her own mother.
The six older children were ages seven, six, five, three and two-year-old twins
at the time the octuplets were born.
When asked why she wanted such a big family
Nadya responded that she had grown up lonely, an only child
and always wanted a large family of her own
Suleman married 1996 but was unable to conceive
because of scarring and fibroid tumors.
An ectopic pregnancy wreaked additional havoc so she began working double shifts
on her job as an aide in a psychiatric hospital to pay for her IVF treatements (in vitro fertilization).
Injured in an on-the-job accident, she went on disabilty and suffered depression
and her marriage broke up.
She says she asked a friend to donate sperm
and continued to undergo IVF treatments.
On 18 May 2001, Nadya gave birth to a baby boy, her first child, named Elijah.
A daughter named Amerah followed in June 2002.
Joshua arrived August 2003.
She had gone back to school and began studying psychology, living on a small inheritance
student loans and her disability checks.
Continuing her IVF treatments, she delivered Aidan in 2005
then twins Calyssa and Caleb in 2006.
She says she wanted to use all the embryos created from her eggs
and the last implantation resulted in the octuplets
.

Aquarius Ascendant (conception chart confirms it, although I advise caution that it is the first degree), Scorpio at the midheaven with Venus at an angle and Jupiter trine, the lot I use is in Gemini - V with Mercury, visible, in his sign and bound, square by Jupiter in Pisces and sextile by Venus in her bound and near Regulus. Jupiter, Venus and Mercury are operative. These placements show many children, including multiple births on account of the double bodied signs. Moon is also near Regulus at an angle showing fame from giving birth (as the Moon's natural significations include pregnancy and nourishment).

Lot and Mercury is conjunct Saturn, but at least in his bound and aspected by benefics. The ruler of X - Mars is declining, which is indicative of her not respectable occupation.

We also have the charts of the octuplets. Sidereally they are born with Aries ascendant, but I note that we have the constellation of Pisces rising with the Aries Jupiter bound which is known as prolific to Valens. The Lot falls in Pisces, showing siblings before birth, but not distinction or good environment. That being said, I do not know what is able to account for 13 siblings. There is no reasoning on account of Capricorn and Sagittarius (jk). With the mother it is on account of the Moon and Regulus and the rest, for one does not become famous through simply giving birth, unless it is to manyplets.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Aquarius Ascendant (conception chart confirms it, although I advise caution that it is the first degree), Scorpio at the midheaven with Venus at an angle and Jupiter trine, the lot I use is in Gemini - V with Mercury, visible, in his sign and bound, square by Jupiter in Pisces and sextile by Venus in her bound and near Regulus. Jupiter, Venus and Mercury are operative. These placements show many children, including multiple births on account of the double bodied signs. Moon is also near Regulus at an angle showing fame from giving birth (as the Moon's natural significations include pregnancy and nourishment).

Lot and Mercury is conjunct Saturn, but at least in his bound and aspected by benefics. The ruler of X - Mars is declining, which is indicative of her not respectable occupation.

We also have the charts of the octuplets. Sidereally they are born with Aries ascendant, but I note that we have the constellation of Pisces rising with the Aries Jupiter bound which is known as prolific to Valens. The Lot falls in Pisces, showing siblings before birth, but not distinction or good environment. That being said, I do not know what is able to account for 15 siblings. There is no reasoning on account of Capricorn and Sagittarius. With the mother it is on account of the Moon and Regulus and the rest, for one does not become famous through simply giving birth, unless it is to manyplets.
A scorpion can have as many as 100 babies in a single brood :smile:
They are born alive, not hatched from eggs like insects

Cancer, Scorpio, Pisces - Fertile - The Crab, the Scorpion and the Fishes are prolific creatures.

3. Concerning the number of children we then examine the culminating image.
SCORPIO is the culminating image of Nadya Sulemans sidereal chart
Birthname Natalie Denise Suleman
 

petosiris

Banned
She also delivered 14 children only on account of modern technology (Mercury related to IVF?) which would not have been possible 2000 years ago. This shows that the heavens still hold the powers attributed to them by the ancients, even though mortals have changed the ways they could achieve birth. Lord Hermes Himself granted us science and technology.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Petosiris, I think you're completely mistaken about me. As I've noted multiple times, I have a lot of respect for your deep knowledge of Hellenistic astrology, and a lot of interest in Hellenistic astrology myself. I'm not out to destroy it. (To what purpose??) My comments to you on this thread are sincere and are not at all sarcastic, so I'm sorry you took them that way.

Having said that, I think a legitimate question about Hellenistic, Medieval and Renaissance astrologies is, to what extent do their techniques apply today, given the major social, economic, and technological changes that have taken place in the intervening centuries?

With an "as above, so below" assumption inherent in traditional astrology, these are legitimate questions.

Given that fertility in the developed world has changed so significantly since ancient times, despite the fact that the heavens (in their permutations) have not substantially changed since then, aren't we left with two alternative conclusions?

(1) Either Hellenistic astrology-- despite the life areas it continues to interpret well-- does not interpret all life areas today. (We could also get into the death rate/life expectancy problem, also, if you're interested.) OR...

(2) As Ptolemy suggested, other variables have to be taken into account, like the astrology of nations, which he thought superseded individual horoscopes.

We also have to acknowledge that Hellenistic astrologers disagreed among themselves, and were very much involved in debating their anti-astrology critics. Debate, internal criticism, and skeptical criticism have been part of Hellenistic astrology since its inception. Hellenistic astrology was strengthened by addressing the critics, not weakened by them.

Are you familiar with Cicero's On Divination? (ca. 44-45 BCE) If not, I highly recommend it because he gets under the hood of questions like, what is divination exactly, and why do we need it anyway? What is the nature and role of chance, as opposed to a deterministic form of astrology? Can you have both or are they mutually exclusive?

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cicero/de_Divinatione/2*.html Start especially with sec. 42 (p. 471)

Here is a description of Cicero's particular problems with astrology, followed by Ptolemy's rebuttal:
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/H-cice2.htm

Cicero raised a demographic question about mass death during a major battle, so the demographic problem with astrology was on the table during the first century BCE.

In my cosmos, children come from God, and He can confound the astrologer's prognostications. Since I don't expect anyone to share my spiritual beliefs, I would generally tell someone inquiring about her ability to conceive, in a secular way, that I see no reason why she couldn't have children, but here are some possible problems and assets regarding her 5th house and moon.

Of course, horary astrology is another way to address questions of fertility in traditional western astrology.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Our friend Ptolemy also said (Tetrabiblos I:2) that astrology is not the whole story of a human life. Genetics were not understood in his day but he talked about "differences of seed." The place of birth causes differences in human qualities, as do differences in cultural practices.

He gets into the astrology of different nations and ethnic groups in book II.

I've not studied a range of ancient cultures that practiced infanticide, but obviously today it is illegal and not really a method of birth control today. (Different than compassionate taking terminally ill children off life support.) The Phoenicians' cult of child sacrifice has been suggested as a form of population control.

But here, too, we see some interesting differences. The Phoenicians (modern-day Lebanon plus ancient Carthage) practiced child sacrifice, but the Hebrew patriarch Abraham believed that if he followed his God's commandments that he would have numerous progeny. Even taking these accounts with a grain of salt, it seems clear that closely adjacent locations with different reproductive cultures would have different fertility patterns. Yet not much different in the way of planetary positions.

So yeah. Ptolemy got to work on this problem, and said that individual nativities do not tell the whole story of how a given human life works out.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

She also delivered 14 children only on account of modern technology
(Mercury related to IVF?)
which would not have been possible 2000 years ago.
This shows that the heavens still hold the powers attributed to them by the ancients, even though
mortals have changed the ways they could achieve birth.
Lord Hermes Himself granted us science and technology.
In fact The Ancients report a few cases of multiple births :smile:
The fate of the children is generally not mentioned.
In Latin, we find forms composed with GEMINI: trigeminus ou tergeminus, septemgeminus.

GEMINI could designate not only two children born at the same time
but also many:
“Gemini non sunt duo tantum simul nati

sed etiam plures, writes Isidor of Seville in his Etymologies

Besides a few mentions of triplets and quadruplets
most anecdotes concern quintuplets.
According to Aristotle
five children represent the limit of human multiple parturition:

The largest number ever brought forth is five
and such an occurrence
has been witnessed on several occasions’.:smile:

However, a few examples of more numerous births have been reported.
Most of them took place in Egypt.
Strabo writes, quoting Aristotle, that in Egypt
a woman bore seven children at a time
a story also repeated by Pliny the Elder
but no author specifies if theywere dead or alive, or if they survived.

Aristotle mentions an extraordinary miscarriage of twelve still-born infants.
This case may be evoked in a manuscript dating from the ninth century AD
preserved in Brussels.

Drawings accompany a work in Latin written for midwives by Mustio
an African physician of the sixth century AD.
The source of the pictures may be much older
as Mustio adapted the treatise on gynaecology by Soranus
dating from the second century AD
which was perhaps illustrated by similar vignettes.

The series of pictures shows cases of difficul labour:
there are triplets in various transverse positions
quadruplets in foot or breech presentations
and the extraordinary picture of eleven or twelve foetuses
possibly those cited by Aristotle
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Given that fertility in the developed world
has changed so significantly since ancient times
despite the fact that the heavens (in their permutations) have not substantially changed since then
aren't we left with two alternative conclusions?
On the contrary
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

PLINY the elder explains :smile:

“The birth of triplets is attested in the case of the Horatii and Curatii
above that number is considered portentous (super [tres] inter ostenta ducitur)
except in Egypt”.

The term ostentum designates the birth of triplets as a bad omen.
The frequency of the phenomenon seems to determine its reception:

if the event is rare, it is a bad omen
if it is frequent, as in Egypt
- it is normal :smile:

The term portentum qualifies multiple births in the Digesta of Justinian.
Gaius tells us that in the reign of Hadrian
a woman had quintuplets.
The Emperor asked her to come
not because she would get royal foster-parentage

or official bounty, or popular acclaim, but because the number of her children
past three, was a bad omen, portentosum.
The story seems to have been very popular.
We find it repeated with variations in the Digesta and elsewhere.
According to Phlegon of Tralles, the woman was from Alexandria.
She gave birth to quintuplets, three boys and two girls
and the next year to triplets.
approximately two thousand years before IVF
 

petosiris

Banned
Those birth omens from the baru priests were known to the Romans, see also ''Traces of the Omen Series Summa Izbu in Cicero, De Divinatione'' where the birth of someone with a lion head or ear becomes a dream of a woman in Roman society giving birth to lion.

The priests provided omens for twins, triplets and even more than 8 infants born at the same time, even for sheep, even though it is probably impossible -
https://ia801408.us.archive.org/24/items/babylonianassyri00jastrich/babylonianassyri00jastrich.pdf
They have omens for various appearances, malformed and so on. They also observed the births of animals as I mentioned. It says that the monster or multiple birth signs as bad probably come from Mesopotamian omens as well. Here is an example of an omen for twins:

''If a woman gives birth to two boys, famine will prevail
in the land, the interior of the country will witness
misfortune, and misfortune will enter the house of their
father'' - Jastrow, M. (1914). Babylonian-Assyrian birth-omens and their cultural significance.
 
Last edited:
Top