Unique Features in a Chart

Aeric

Hi all,

This is a natal chart for a friend's child. I was wondering if experienced people could point out unique formations such as stellia, etc. Just identifying the mathematical features is all I need.

The automatic printout gave common aspects like quincunx, trines, conjunctions, etc. I can take care of those. But I wonder if there's anything uncommon, such as the three planets in Virgo House 4 (is this a "triple conjunction?"), or that many of the remaining planets are the only ones in their signs/houses, is that called something?

I can research the interpretations myself, but I'm not experienced to know what significant arrangements to look for on the wheel.

All help is greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Miss K.pdf
    88.8 KB · Views: 370

frac_ture

Hi, Aeric--

A few observations:

1) The Planets in the Fourth House are in Capricorn, not Virgo. If Venus was closer to the other two, I'd label that cluster a stellium, but at 12 degrees of distance, that feels like too much separation to qualify (as I personally view these things). So there's a Mercury/Pluto conjunction in Capricorn in the Fourth House, but if you're asking me, no stellium. A stellium is one of many, many concepts in Astrology whose definition will vary from one astrologer to the next, but it seems safe to at least say that when three or more Planets lie within close enough proximity to each other (again, "close enough proximity" is somewhat subjective), and are in the same Sign *and* the same House, then it probably won't raise too many objections if you call the cluster a stellium. I don't think anyone ever really says "triple conjunction." I'd still view Capricorn and the Fourth House as very important focal points of energy for this person, though.

2) You've included some features that many astrologers don't consider all that important (although as with everything else, you can always find some who will swear that they're life-or-death essential, too). Things like the Part of Fortune, Lilith, and the Vertex are often disregarded entirely, and more traditional astrologers will even dismiss the Outer Planets (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Chiron). What feels important to you, based on your own experience...?

3) The North Node and Jupiter are both less than a degree from the Ascendant, and I'd refer to them as "Rising" (as in, "Jupiter Rising"). I've personally found it to be true that a Rising Planet such as this seems to hold elevated importance for a person, and they often seem to embody the essence of that Planet -- this is just my own experience, though, not some rule I'm quoting! I'd tend to think that Virgo, Jupiter, and the First House are all important symbols to study for this person, and if you like Nodal analysis, it would seem that having one's Nodal axis aligning so closely with the Ascendant/Descendant axis also merits some study.

4) When a chart has three or more consecutive Signs empty of Planets -- such as here, with Taurus, Gemini, and Cancer -- some astrologers will say that the chart is arrayed in a Locomotive configuration. The Planet that represents the border on the counter-clockwise side of that empty space is known as the Cutting Planet, and people who embrace this kind of analysis will say that the Cutting Planet carries the same kind of augmented importance for a person that I see in a Rising Planet. I don't really have much personal experience analyzing Locomotive charts and Cutting Planets, so I'm just reporting the news here, and not saying yea or nay...

5) I don't know that I see any other "significant arrangements" as you phrase it. I'd suggest starting by examining the "Big Three" of Sun, Moon, and Ascendant, and then move on to the Aspects and the connections by Planetary rulership that feel strongest to you. Some of the analysis will hinge greatly on how inclusive you want to be in terms of which Planets you want to consider.

I hope that was helpful! Hopefully, some of the veteran posters here will weigh in...
 

Aeric

Ugh I confused Virgo for Capricorn since they're both coloured green here. Thanks!

Yes, I read that disputes of 3 or 4 planets create a stellium, but I wasn't sure if I was looking at what would be the proper arrangements for one.

I have worked with the Outer planets in only a very general sense, analyzing how they stand on their own in their sign and unrelated to other planets. I kept connective aspects to the Inners, only because the work was getting exhaustive going through just them!

I've never thought of a planet as Rising like a sign, thanks for pointing this out! I like the sound of the "locomotive" arrangement and Cutting planet and I'll see if it has any further application when researching the rising planet.

You've been extremely helpful with just this. My usual routine is to start with the Big Three and then the individual planets. I haven't learned as much about connective aspects, I was able to get an enormous amount of information from just planet-sign alone, but I can easily see how gargantuan a complete analysis would be for an experienced person!
 

Minderwiz

I very much agree with CosmicBeing's point about Jupiter, Ascendant and North Node (well nodal axis).

Mercury rules both Ascendant and MC and is angular in the fourth (using the chart house system). So strongly placed Ascendant Ruler.

On stellia, I'm very much an agnostic. The more bodies you use the greater the chances are that you'll get one so I tend to go with the original 7. Get three of them in one sign (apart from Sun, Mercury and Venus) and you have something of significance. In this case you have Mercury and Venus, with a separation of 12 degrees. It's going to be noticeable but not in your face.

Add Pluto and you've got a lot of mileage in the Pluto/Venus conjunction, if you're so inclined.

As I use whole sign houses, I don't want to confuse you with planet placements but I would look to Venus as the most beneficial planet in the chart and to Saturn as the most negative one.
 

frac_ture

Aeric, I'm happy to kick in some thoughts in situations like these -- I'm glad they seemed helpful for you! And you're right, Astrology can get complex enough to break almost any brain as you open the information-gates wider and wider. And as Minderwiz says, the more bodies you factor in, the more Aspects and configurations will seem to appear.

Minderwiz, do you take into account these types of overall chart patterns that some astrologers like, such as the Locomotive? I know there are plenty of others, too (the Funnel, the See-Saw, etc.). I don't actually use them as primary factors in analyzing a chart, though -- I focus far more on the various Aspects, and on connections by way of rulership. I'm just curious to know if people do put much emphasis on these kinds of chart patterns...
 

Minderwiz

Minderwiz, do you take into account these types of overall chart patterns that some astrologers like, such as the Locomotive? I know there are plenty of others, too (the Funnel, the See-Saw, etc.). I don't actually use them as primary factors in analyzing a chart, though -- I focus far more on the various Aspects, and on connections by way of rulership. I'm just curious to know if people do put much emphasis on these kinds of chart patterns...

No I ignore the so called patterns It's the aspects themselves that matter and that means the planets, houses and signs involved. Drawing lines on a chart might satisfy some psychological drive to make cognitive sense but it says much more about the Astrologer than the native.

Again the more bodies you use the chances of finding such a pattern increase exponentially but if the pattern involves Vulcan, Vesta, Juno and Hygeia does it have any real significance at all?
 

Aeric

That's a great point. I didn't anticipate the amount of complexities by adding things I hadn't previously considered like nodes and asteroids. The aspects between two planets alone are newer to me and I think I bit off more than I could chew when I just asked for everything from the program. I like that much like Tarot it depends what the astrologer sees personally and how much she is willing to pay attention to.

I'll work on the individual signs, some of the aspects, and the locomotive, I think that's more than enough. But this has opened up a new dimension for me in looking at the chart on a strictly visual level almost like a Tarot card. How the wheel itself is arranged, negative space has meaning, etc.
 

Minderwiz

That's a great point. I didn't anticipate the amount of complexities by adding things I hadn't previously considered like nodes and asteroids. The aspects between two planets alone are newer to me and I think I bit off more than I could chew when I just asked for everything from the program. I like that much like Tarot it depends what the astrologer sees personally and how much she is willing to pay attention to.

I'll work on the individual signs, some of the aspects, and the locomotive, I think that's more than enough. But this has opened up a new dimension for me in looking at the chart on a strictly visual level almost like a Tarot card. How the wheel itself is arranged, negative space has meaning, etc.

For a beginner, I'd say concentrate on planets, houses and signs (in that order); then consider aspects (major only). Add to this only when you know what you are doing and why.

Don't be deceived by empty space. Again it's a psychological disorder suffered by modern Astrologers who seek to find meaning in everything, including empty space. There are so many bodies that can be used by the modern Astrologer that they feel space should be filled and empty space is weird and therefore highly significant. Traditional Astrologers used only 7 planets and therefore empty houses were the norm. If that made you worried there were several hundred visible fixed stars tht you could fall back on, many of which were firmly established astrological bodies milennia ago..

The idea that a bright shining fixed star is of much less importance than an orbiting lump of non-visible rock is a modern invention. Once you've mastered the planets have a look at fixed stars - literally