In the course of these talks on the Signs I have seized the Bull
by its horns, sought the Lion in its den and dealt 
with several others, not in the way of a formal scientific 
investigation but rather in the manner of personal 
impressions and random thoughts that have come to me in the 
course of composition. 
  Now I feel moved to take the Goat by its beard. 
  Not an easy task. 
  The first idea that comes to me is that two signs have 
been much maligned by the ancients, and the Goat is one of 
them. 
  In modern times amends have been made to Scorpio.  Many 
have pointed out that it is not by any means the vicious and 
malicious creature that our forerunners imagined, always 
ready with poison and dagger, thumbscrew and rack, playing 
upon its victims weaknesses, as Iago played upon 
Cassio's, consumed with envy and spite: "never at heart's 
ease whiles they behold a greater than themselves." 
  But Capricorn remains largely unvindicated except that, if 
I remember rightly, Miss Isabelle Pagan has pointed out that 
it is often handsome, whereas Coley  writeth of its 
appearance: "usually very slender weakly men, of a mean 
stature, and dry constitution, the face lean and thin, 
blackish hair and thin beard, a long neck, narrow chin; and 
in fine but disproportioned body, choleric, sad, but yet 
witty and subtle." 
  Others comment on their black and prominent teeth and also 
their offensive breath.  Their immoral tendencies also come 
in for a good deal of attention. 
  Well, I have met some of this type...I mean as regards 
appearance...but I have met many more good-looking 
specimens. 
  I should say the truest thing in all this farrago is that 
they do tend to have narrow jaws and prominent teeth, now 
usually corrected in childhood. 
  However, we will return later to Capricorn rising and its 
qualities both exterior and interior. 
  Sun in Capricorn does not, I think, offer much difficulty. 
  I seem to have met comparatively few, but my impression is 
that they tend to exhibit the better side of Saturn.  I 
picture to myself a person of average stature, slender 
rather than obese, upright in carriage, correct if rather 
formal in dress.  The nature is somewhat reserved, but not 
unduly so; they do not babble but converse, choosing their 
thoughts and words carefully.  They are self-regarding and 
often ambitious but I would not say they are much more 
selfish than most of us are; however, they are probably not 
profuse givers.  Careful and farsighted in business, 
courteous in demeanor.  Some may be snobbish...I do not 
know.  In any case they have no monopoly on this failing. 
Disraeli said that the English love a lord, and perhaps most 
of us do. 
  Is Capricorn intelligent? 
  Saturn is a paradox here.  It can be so stupid and also so 
profound.  But Mercury is certainly strong in Capricorn: it 
indicates an active mind. 
  As my example, in English literature, of the sign, I take 
Soames Forsyte, the "man of property" who was so very 
unfortunate in his emotional life. This last I do not take 
as characteristic of Sun in the Goat, who I imagine, usually 
makes a judicious choice in marriage and takes his family 
responsibilities seriously.  Soames' tragedy was that he was 
an unlovable man who wanted to be loved.  I have met others 
with prominent Saturns who were rather like that.  One told 
me the one thing he had always wanted was a real friend: 
poor fellow, he could not see that it is difficult to be 
fond of a man who is completely self-centered and talks and 
thinks only of himself. 
  He had Saturn rising in Aries...an egocentric combination. 
  M. Barbault tells us that Capricorn does not fall into 
love easily: as soon as this feeling appears he takes care 
to guard himself against any excessive attachment, of being 
"captured" in fact. 
  One must not overlook the scientific achievements of the 
sign.  I do not look for this when it rises, but when it is 
otherwise stressed.  Of which condition Louis Pasteur is the 
prime instance, with the Sun and five planets in Capricorn.  E 
  I do not find Sun-Capricorn common amongst our own ranks. 
  Why? 
  Because, I believe, Astrology is not exact enough for its 
tastes.  There are too many exceptions to the rules, at 
least at present.  We may be able later to establish 
something more precise. 
  An exception is Johann Keeler, who had Sun and three 
planets in Capricorn.  But he seems at times to have grown 
impatient with Astrology. 
  It is not easy to find eminent Capricorn statesmen, at 
least in modern times, when one needs the "common touch" and 
a playing up to the popular prejudices to succeed.  Attlee 
is an example of Sun and two planets in this sign and a good 
one, too, I feel.  He liked to get through his agenda in a 
methodical and businesslike manner, whereas Churchill often 
addressed long harangues to his committees. 
  Of course, in times past, Gladstone was loquacious and 
quite able and willing to stir popular passions, and he had 
Sun rising in Capricorn, though I recall that an able 
astrologer, Ralph Shirley, who had listened to Gladstone, 
said that his impassioned style argued Sagittarius rising. 
  David Lloyd George, too had Sun in Capricorn.  But it was 
in square to Jupiter and Mars.  He certainly was not 
restricted in his oratory by any zeal for exactitude. 
  So far I have had Sun in Capricorn in mind. 
  Now let us consider Moon in the sign.  Not, of course, a 
popular emplacement, perhaps because it is usually tactless 
and outspoken. 
  But a study of a certain number of cases discloses some 
interesting tendencies... 
  It would appear to signify a solitary, unfortunate and 
even tragic end, though naturally aspects must be borne in 
mind.  But the native will often live to see his plans in 
ruins. 
  The classic case is Napoleon I.  In his case Moon was 
opposed to Saturn, but Hitler's Moon had no such affliction, 
and his end was even worse.  With him we may couple 
Goebbels, deformed alike in body and soul. 
  We may add Wallenstein, assassinated by order of the 
Austrian emperor against whom he was plotting. 
  These people had large aims. 
  One may associate Count Zeppelin with magnitude too.  He 
lived to a considerable age, but I suppose his life work 
also came to naught.  No one nowadays dreams of building the 
very vulnerable craft he constructed. 
  A good many scientists have had the Moon-Capricorn 
emplacement.  We may now look at Charles the 
Great...Charlemagne in whose case size appears agin; size in 
his work, and physical stature too.  So far as I know, he 
maintained his power and dignity to the end of his life, but 
this was marred by ill health. 
  George Washington also lost nothing in prestige in his 
later years; but he suffered a good deal in health, 
believe, in his later years. 
  President Wilson ended in physical and political collapse. 
  Lord Nelson and Abraham Lincoln triumphed only to die. 
  The Emperor Augustus ended his days with his family life 
in ruins and his heart broken by the disaster in Germany: 
"Varus, Varus, give me back my legions!" 
  Perhaps the most tragic finale of all was that of George 
III blind and mad.  It is characteristic of a Capricorn 
influence that his insanity took the form of incessant 
talking.  He addressed himself to the trees in Richmond 
Park.  Of course his Moon was dreadfully afflicted. 
  The most likeable Moon-Capricorns that I have come across, 
apart from personal friends, were the poet Horace and Samuel 
Pepys.  But the former died in early middle age and the 
latter was, I believe, a sufferer from the Hanoverian 
succession and had two short spells in jail. 
  However, we must not despair if have this sign position: 
we may be one of the exceptions.  We may have vigorous 
health and a peaceful old age.  But the odds seem against 
this.  And if we get these boons it will be in spite of Moon 
in Capricorn rather than thanks to it. 
  Finally, the late Evangeline Adams has been quoted as 
saying that no enterprise succeeds if begun under Moon in 
Capricorn.  So I suppose no life would succeed either, since 
living is an enterprise.  But this is scarcely true of such 
men as Nelson or for that matter Montgomery. 
  But it seems an erratic influence.  Unpredictable in fact. 
  Those who try to predict of these people often go astray. 
One recalls how Nelson's bluff sea-captain uncle said:"Send 
him to sea and kill him off," or words to that effect.  This 
forecast came literally true but not at all in the sense the 
old man meant. 
  Mercury in Capricorn , as I have said, is good. 
  One might almost say that the planet is exalted in this 
sign, and not, as tradition claims, in its own sign Virgo. 
  It is strange that, whilst we think of Saturn as slow and 
rather taciturn, Capricorn is usually far from silent: and 
when Mercury is there, we have a very active and quick mind. 
  I will not trouble you with a list of clever people with 
this sign position. 
  Venus in Capricorn does not appeal at first sight.  One 
has too many sad recollections of what the two planets, 
Venus-Saturn, may indicate when closely associated. 
  Most people have read of the extraordinary vagaries of 
Tolstoy's sexual life and his teachings on that aspect of 
our existence.  He had Venus conjunction Saturn in Leo. 
  Coley tells us that Venus in Capricorn is too fond both of 
the opposite sex and also of food..."not fortunate, too 
subject to change his station and suffer sudden catastrophe's 
in his affairs." 
  My view is that, as with Moon in Capricorn, there is a 
good deal of the erratic in the nature, especially in matters 
of love. 
  We shall get the monk or the nun, and also the sensualist, 
or one, like Tolstoy, who has gone vehemently from one 
condition to the other. 
  However, let us see what we can find in Maurice Wemyss' 
little books, to which I am much indebted in composing these 
notes. 
  In More Notable Nativities we start with a saint...St. 
Columba...and the next is curious...Colonel Monk.  I do not 
know what this man's private life was like, but the name is 
amusing!  He is described as managing his affairs with 
"incomparable diplomacy." 
  We have Jinarajadasa as another ascetic. 
  Benjamin Franklin comes next.  I remember in one of his 
books he advised young men to choose elderly ladies as their 
mistresses, for reasons which are not greatly to his credit 
nor expressed with much taste.  But the advice is so like 
what one might imagine for Venus-Capricorn that I cannot 
forbear mentioning him. 
  It suggests that those who prefer honorable marriage might 
still aim at safety rather than emotional satisfaction. 
  Lastly, so far as this manual is concerned, comes Nero, 
who murdered his mother and one of his wives and indulged in 
every sort of sexual excess. 
  Famous Nativities gives another Caesar, namely Claudius, 
who also put a wife to death.  He was a sort of learned 
imbecile and inquired the next day what had become of her 
that she failed to appear at supper.  She deserved what she 
got. 
  Turning to a pleasanter example we have Spinoza, a saint 
in his life.  He was unmarried and died aged only 44 of 
consumption.  The arts are represented by Berlioz, George 
Romney, and Yehudi Menuhin.  Capricorn has a strongly 
artistic tendency, as we shall see. 
  Incidentally it is important to remember that positions 
may vary in their nature according to race and nationality. 
What may have a good effect, for example, in the average
Jewish nativity may be the reverse in that of a German. 
Relationship to the "overriding maps" is worthy of 
consideration.  Unfortunately we rarely have the related 
figure to which to refer. 
  Spinoza, who was excommunicated from Israel for his 
unorthodox views, must have had positions that were at sharp 
variance with the Jewish racial horoscope. 
  Capricorn manifestations are often so unexpected that it 
almost seems as if there were two or three signs concerned 
in the matter. 
  The Chaldean decanate rulers are Jupiter, Mars and the 
Sun.  Sometimes this seems to yield a clue. 
  These eccentricities appear more strongly when the sign 
rises. 
  Mars in Capricorn is exalted. Alan Leo was fond of saying 
this denotes skill in action; and the phrase seems apt. 
  President Eisenhower comes to mind; he has this position 
in his 10th house.  Probably he is greater as a diplomatic 
leader of many nations rather than as a strategist or 
fighting man. 
  One hardly supposes he will go down in history as a very 
successful President. 
  In the main, Mars-Capricorn seems to tend to economists 
and other rather down to earth people, and also to governors 
and officials. 
  Necker, who tried to reform the French economy prior to 
the Revolution, had this position and with him we may 
contrast that glib rascal, Horatio Bottomley, who escaped 
justice for a long time by creating financial confusion 
around himself as a sort of smoke-screen. 
  Nungesser, the French war-time ace, must represent the 
"skill in action" category. 
  Rear Admiral Byrd is another example of the better sort. 
  Among poets we have Oliver Goldsmith and Andrew Marvell, 
but I hardly know how the particular position which we are 
discussing appeared in their lives. 
  In the good old days (for certain classes) when there were 
innumerable official jobs in the Far East and in Africa for 
our young men, I fancy Mars-Capricorn was a fortunate thing 
to have.  Now I am not so sure, but it should be good for 
engineering work and for any kind of administrative 
position. 
  One cannot say much about the major planets because of 
their slow motion. 
  Capricorn-Jupiter is probably a rather austere Jove.  It 
is inclined to the Puritan view of things and expects a lot 
of others, and, one hopes, of itself too. 
  I found Saturn-Capricorn to be accident prone.  I once 
heard it said that it is "altogether too much Saturn" and 
that seems to sum it up.  In the old days we had a faithful 
and conscientious member of the Lodge with Saturn rising in 
Capricorn and she was extremely reserved and, I should say, 
inhibited.  Most of her time was devoted to a widowed and
invalid mother. 
  In one of my books the data are given of two twins, 
doctors, with Saturn in Capricorn near cusp 2.  They devoted 
themselves to cancer research and apparently ran out of 
funds, and then committed suicide. 
  It hardly seems worthwhile to say much of Uranus-Capricorn 
and Neptune-Capricorn, for such positions could only be 
really important if on an angle. 
  One could however speculate as to the value of the 
conjunction of these two planets in Capricorn in 1821-22. 
It might point to a period of "idealistic materialism" or 
"benevolent materialism" and its fruits might be expected to 
appear when those born with it attained maturity.  Pasteur 
is an instance.  There must be many more. 
  Now we must pass to that difficult aspect of our discussion... 
Capricorn rising.  Difficult to me, at any rate. 
  I shall not allow the matter, so far as I am concerned, to 
be complicated by the introduction of sidereal 
considerations.  My Capricorns must be Capricorns, and not 
Sagittarians, though I will admit that people born under the 
earlier part of the sign may have some traces in their 
appearance and disposition of the preceding Archer. 
  The symbol of the upward-striving Goat suggests a climber, 
but climb to what? 
  It would seem that Capricorn wishes to better himself, but 
this may be on the spiritual or moral plane, not necessarily 
the material.  He may seek rank and power and authority, or 
he may be a Yogi, like Swami Vivekananda.  The principle is 
the same. 
  Or he may simply aspire to be good at his profession or 
calling, which is to no one's discredit. 
  What is sometimes asserted about Capricorn is that he uses 
others for his own ends.  While toadying to the important, 
he is said to be indifferent or contemptuous to the failures 
and the mediocre who cannot serve his purposes. 
  I fear there may be something in this and suggest that a 
Scorpio-Capricorn combination may be particularly subtle in 
climbing on others' shoulders. 
  What is pretty certain is that the good Capricorns are 
gentlemanly fellows...which their enemies may cite as making 
them all the more dangerous. 
  As for their being selfish, well, most people are, more or 
less.  Between the extremes of the complete egotist and the 
selfless saint, there are all degrees of people whom one 
would normally class as good-natured...that is, they will 
lend a helping hand if it does not make too great a demand 
on their time and trouble...and pocket. 
  As a matter of principle I suppose Earth is more 
self-regarding than the other three elements. 
  Having said this much of what I take to be the typical 
Goat, I will not proceed to affirm that there are a great 
many typical natives of the sign. 
  I further assert that, having known several of them, those 
born under the first few degrees of Capricorn are some of 
the pleasantest people. 
  I note that they are commonly interested in religion or 
philosophy, are cheerful and agreeable companions, are by no 
means specially ambitious in a worldly way if at all, and 
are in a word good chaps...or girls, as the case may be. 
Without being sentimental or gushing, they are kind both to 
humans and to animals.  Usually they have plenty to say. 
  I do not know why this is so, though I may mention that 
the beginning of Capricorn does contain several stars 
belonging to the constellation Sagittarius, and this may 
produce a happy blend of Jupiter and Saturn. 
  Another point is, that whereas Sun in Capricorn strikes 
one as being self-contained, the sign when rising often 
exhibits strong emotionalism and is definitely musical, or 
otherwise artistic. 
  It may be noted here that Capricorn rising means that the 
East Point is in Aquarius in the latitude of London, and 
this probably has a bearing on its qualities. 
  Queen Elizabeth I was a most capricious specimen.  She 
exasperated all with whom she had to work or negotiate.  But 
she knew what she wanted, which was the glory of England, 
and she got it, and the people loved her, and, probably, she 
them.  It is not strange that Capricorn should be 
capricious, for the words have the same derivation.  What is 
strange is that the sign should be ruled by Saturn, which is 
far from capricious.  I do not know of any other British 
sovereign, until our own day, that was born under this sign, 
though some place the Lord Protector under it, and under the 
last decanate, the regal one. 
  Now, I wish to introduce you to three ordinary folk, a 
mother, her son and daughter. 
  Here are the data.  They were born in S.W.London and the 
times given are G.M.T. 
                       Mother-6 p.m., August 2, 1921 
                       Son--5 p.m., August 12, 1942 
                       Daughter-6:45 p.m., July 27, 1946 
  They are a united family, and no wonder.  We are used to 
seeing many common factors in family maps, but this is an 
outstanding case. 
  All three have Capricorn rising and Sun in Leo. 
  One has the Moon in Leo too; the others have Moon in 
Cancer.  Cancer is stressed in all three, so is Virgo. 
  Now the mother is much what I should expect.  She is 
rather tall, thin, with brown hair and grey eyes, oval face, 
a fresh complexion...quite nice looking.  In disposition she 
is kind and thoughtful, but with nothing sentimental or 
gushing; she is businesslike and efficient and takes a real 
interest in all domestic appliances, cooking and so forth. 
  Bright and vivacious and has plenty to talk about, but her 
conversation, as one might expect from Moon and two planets 
in Cancer, centers on her family. 
  So far, so good.  It is the two children that present a 
problem, for though their maps have so much in common, in 
temperament they appear exactly opposite. 
  The boy is a thorough introvert. 
  Neat, quiet, dislikes company, particularly girls. 
  Thrifty. Absolutely prudish.  No interest in games. 
  A natural vegetarian, will not sit at table when meat is 
eaten if he can help it. 
  Is fond of animals and all forms of natural life. 
  Would like to live in a hut in the woods with a dog. 
  Worries about infection, microbes and so forth. 
  Training to be an agricultural engineer and is a good 
gardener. 
  All this suggests a strong Virgo influence.  True, he has 
planets in Virgo, but so have his mother and his sister. 
  The sister is the exact opposite.  She is a tomboy so far 
as loving all games and outdoor recreation. 
  She likes meeting people...any sort of people...and 
volunteers whenever there is a call for house-to-house 
canvassing. 
  She talks incessantly. 
  She has no propensity to vegetarianism. 
  She is extremely untidy. 
  So if the boy suggest Virgo, she suggests Aries. 
  But neither is either! 
  I may now add that the girl has a distinct gift, in 
respect of which an examiner, writing privately to her 
teacher, described her as "brilliant." Perhaps you would 
like to discover what this talent is? 
  She aspires to be a reported and has already, aged 12, 
earned two half-guineas for items supplied to the local 
periodical.  I should say she would make an excellent one 
for she is full of interest in everybody and everything and 
is so observant. 
  Thus it is the difference between brother and sister, and 
in particular the character of the former, that is our 
puzzle. 
  The boy has a close parallel between his ruler and Uranus, 
whilst Mars sends a square between them.  But it is 
difficult to reconcile these with a retiring disposition. 
  Perhaps it is the two benefics in the sensitive Cancer in 
the 7th, bringing us back to the doctrine, so often 
enunciated here, that it's the angular bodies that count. 
But after all the girl has Moon and Saturn in 7th in Cancer, 
and that hardly seems tough and outgoing. 
  Let us be thankful for our problems.  Astrology would be dull without them. 

---

© Astrology Quarterly  §  Vol.35/4 1961

---

Bibliography | ©Copyright