Once upon a time, long long ago when I was a young
astrologer, it seems as if we used to make fun of Leos
rather a lot.  I wonder what the reason was!  Perhaps it was
because Alan Leo did in those days so overshadow all the
other astrologers and thus became sort of Headmaster Image
and we, like naughty schoolboys, enjoyed making oblique
passes at him.
  Perhaps the most frequent accusation levelled against the
sign was that it picked other people's brains, usually
Mercury brains; and indeed it is difficult, in reading Leo's
books, to decide just how much he actually wrote and how
much he got from other sources.  If he did use Mercurials in
this way, he has been amply repaid by those who have dug
deeply and widely in his books and sometimes copied out
whole passages without any sort of acknowledgment.
  Actually there are a great many people in the world who
have brains and industry but make little use of them, so far
as the rest of mankind is concerned.  They study in private,
amass a lot of interesting matter, but do nothing further
about it; and if a Leo does come along and organises their
efforts and fie the results to the world, that is a valuable
service.
  If the Sun shines upon all the planets, bathing them in
light, it is not unfair if, in turn, it draws something back
unto itself from them, especially if its aim is to put forth
yet again for the common advantage.
  Be this as it may, I have learnt to know Leos better since
then.
  Every sign has its unpleasant side and also, to the
humorist, an amusing side.
  There is a pompous, self-satisfied Leo, whom one feels
impelled to accost with the inquiry: "Excuse me, but are you
anyone in particular?"
  There is the sentimental Leo who weeps readily and loves
to dramatise its sorrows.
  There is the Leo who soaks up fulsome flattery and becomes
surrounded with parasites and sycophants.
  And there are stupid Leos who irritate by their want of
intellect and interest in intellectual matters.
  It is said to lack a sense of humour, though it has great
vitality and a sense of fun and enjoyment.  It does enjoy
living.  And certainly some of the examples we shall examine
later on possessed plenty of wit and humour.
  It is said also not to like to be made fun of, but then a
good many people do not like that.  It is a thing that few
people enjoy for long.
  Really, there are so many sorts of Leos that it is hard to
generalise.
  Now for its virtues.
  I would put unselfishness to its credit, and that is
saying a great deal. Of course it is not a common quality
anywhere, but the most unselfish people known to me have
been Leos.  After all, it is natural for the Sun to give out
but that is no reason for withholding our acknowledgment of
this admirable trait.
  Then again it has courage.  Not always physical courage;
indeed it has been asserted that the lion is something of a
sham in that respect.  But natives of Leo have backbone;
when things go wrong, they can face up to it; they do not
readily throw up the sponge.  They have faith, which is
different from the rather facile optimism of Sagittarius,
which is apt easily to evaporate when luck seems against
him.
  Maurice Wemyss gives as ruler of Leo a hypothetical body
which he names Hercules; and there is something of the
hero-soul about many Leonians.
  If we regard the life of Alan Leo we shall admit that he
was of that noble race.  To set out to purify Astrology from
dross and superstition, to rescue maiden Urania from the
dragon as it were, was an heroic enterprise for one who had
neither money, backing nor education.
  Like many Leos, he had a saving common sense and a sense
of the practicable.  He was an idealist, but no dreamer.
  The Leo ability is as a rule, but not always, general
rather than particular, as indeed fits a leader.  I should
not say as a rule that Leo is "good about the house," apt
with blown fuses or leaking taps.
  But there is a big exception here.  Leo is very often a
gifted artist.  It is creative, and often loves its
children, but this creativeness goes far beyond bodily
procreation.  It is often a painter but more often a
musician or actor, and quite frequently it is a writer.
Perhaps its productions are not often in the first class,
but there is usually a certain vitality and warmth about
them that appeals to the hearts of most people, if not to
the captious Virgo critics!
  But we must always remember that Leo is a sign of very
varied expression.  There are four main points in a
nativity: Sun, Moon, ruler and ascendant; and with Leos two
are the same.  Therefore much depends on the sign
emplacement and aspects of the ruler which is also the Sun.
  Another point to consider is the sign on the midheaven,
which in these latitudes may be Aries or Taurus; the former
are commonly more mobile, physically and mentally.
  Thirdly, if we agree that the constellations have some
value and accept Cyril Fagan's calculations, the first 23
degrees or so of Leo are in the constellation Cancer which
would make the natives of that area quieter and more
sensitive and more of "family men" or women.
  Fourthly, we must bear the decanates in mind.
Leo-Sagittarius-Aries by the Hindu method;
Saturn-Jupiter-Mars by the Chaldean.
  The variability of Leo is clearly shown when we consider
physical types.
  We all have a conception of the so-called typical
Leo...tall, upright, broad-shouldered, florid in complexion,
large round eyes.  But few Leos are like that and some are
not in the least like it.  Indeed Leo is the sign I would
usually suggest in cases when no other sign seems to be
plainly indicated.
  When I chose to speak on eminent Leos I thought I had made
an easy section for myself.  I thought there would be any
amount of them.  To my surprise this was not the case.  Leo
on the M.C., with Scorpio rising, yes; they are abundant.
But Leo rising, or even Sun in Leo, was not prominent.
  How shall we salve this blow to Leonian pride?
  Shall we say that this is an age of specialists, and Leo
does not specialise?  Perhaps that is as good a reason as
any other!
  It seems right and proper to begin our eminent Leos with
Price Charles.
  This young man's chief failing, as a constitutional
monarch is, I venture to predict firmness...or obstinacy, if
you prefer.  Leo rising, Moon in Taurus, Sun and Mercury in
Scorpio: altogether too fixed.
  It has been said that it is nice to feel that we shall
have a Leo monarch; but the last three were not altogether
popular: George III, James II. Charles I, often placed under
Leo, was seemingly a native of Virgo.
  Of course Prince Charles has some really excellent aspects
to help him out, but one would say that his ministers will
find him difficult at times.  I am afraid the age of Leonine
monarchs had passed, though it may conceivably return.
  Our royalty has been strong in Leo for some time past.
Curiously enough, neither Queen Victoria nor Edward VII had
any bodies in this sign, but George V had his ruler there
and George VI the ruler of his Sun sign.  Our present Queen
and the Duke of Edinburgh both have the Moon in Leo, and the
Queen Mother has her Sun there, as has also Princess
Margaret.  Lastly, Princess Anne is an attractive example of
a usually pleasant combination...Libra rising, Sun in Leo.
  A famous, though fabulous, Leo is Colonel Blimp.  With his
round stupid eyes and his face of almost animal
unintelligence and his firm conviction that in no
circumstances whatsoever can he be wrong, he is a fine
caricature of Leo at its most absurd.
  However, it might well be maintained that the Colonel at
least knew his own mind, or what he would have called his
mind, and stuck to his principles, even if they were feudal
in quality; and that is better than to be a ditherer and
time-server.
  If the conceit and self-satisfaction of some Leos is
insufferable, the victims of the sense of inferiority who
lives a life of self-excuse and apology is equally trying.
  Of course it is not the average Leo but the eminent Leos
that we are supposed to discuss tonight, and so naturally
among the latter we shall find able and clever men.  But
they do not seem to be as interesting as personalities or as
numerous as the Aquarians.
  I shall deal chiefly with Leo rising and Sun in Leo, but I
mention that some of the most Leo people I know have heavy
stresses on the 5th house and next to nothing in the sign.
It used to be said that sign was character and the house the
field in which it is expressed, but frankly this is wrong.
It is, in my view, a major mistake.
  The lady who interviewed me on television recently struck
me as one of the most Leo persons imaginable.  But her natus
showed nothing but Neptune in that sign: however, she had
Sun, Venus, Jupiter and Mercury in the 5th, with Mars close
to the cusp.  You may imagine that Mercury conjunction
Jupiter, with Capricorn rising, and with this satellitium in
the 5th, made her one of the most self-confident persons
imaginable.  She insisted on announcing me as "President
Emeritus of the Astrological Lodge of the Theosophical
Society"although she didn't know what "Emeritus" means and
also asked me what "theosophical" signified.  She said the
title sounded so fine!  If that isn't Leo, I don't know what
is!
  All the same one could not but admire her magnificent
vitality...and hope that Mercury conjunction Jupiter may at
some time awaken her intellectual faculty.
  This reminds me of an eminent native of Leo whose
intellect was far from dormant, to wit F.E. Smith, Lord
Birkenhead.  He also had the same conjunction
(Mercury-Jupiter), in Leo itself, but it was stimulated by a
conjunction of Uranus with both bodies, and they were in
sextile to the Moon in the 3rd house.  His was certainly a
brilliant mind if ever there was one, and had complete
self-confidence.  Yet, though successful at the Bar and on
the Bench, he was a failure in the City.  One might expect
Leo to be more at home in financial circles than in legal
surroundings, but in this instance, the reverse was the
case.  Lack of tact; which we have mentioned as a common Leo
failing, is said to have been the reason.
  Incidentally, he was a tall man and how often Jupiter in
the 12th...or at least technically in the 12th...gives
stature above the ordinary.
  It does seem as if the area of the 1st house does extend
over about half the ecliptical range of the 12th.
  Mention of television brings us to its inventor, John
Logie Baird, who had Virgo rising but the Sun, Mercury,
Venus and Saturn in Leo.  Mercury and Saturn were in
conjunction, a good emplacement for a scientific mind, slow
and painstaking.  Uranus was sextile to all four.  I suppose
one sees the Leo in the fact that his discover has
contributed so much to popular amusement.
  Two others with close connections to popular amusement
were Phyllis Dare (Sun-Moon) and Gracie Fields (Moon); and I
suppose George Bernard Shaw (Sun conjunct Venus) will be
known to posterity chiefly as an amusing writer rather than
a serious one.  It is true that in his latter years even the
Times referred to him as a "sage"...goodness knows why.  He
talked enough nonsense and unfortunately got it into print.
However, he did not belie his stars and this conjunction in
Leo made him a very kindhearted man and I should think a
very happy one.  It agrees also with his early work as a
musical critic. 

  Mr. Freedman used to be fond of the aphorism "All Leos are
liars." I should have thought, that, in general, Gemini and
Sagittarius shine most in this field.  But one supremely
great liar was Goebbels, of abominable memory; it was in
fact, his profession.  He had Leo rising with Cauda (South
Node of the Moon) on the ascendant, which is said to deform
both mind and body, but this is a doctrine to which I do not
subscribe and perhaps others can find a better explanation
of his mendacity and club-foot.
  I suppose it is not very good, as a general rule, to have
two opposing values both strong in one's nativity, and I do
not greatly care for those who have a lot of Sun matched
with much Saturn.  Such people are like the lean and hungry
Cassius, 

        "are never at heart's ease
        Whilst they behold a greater than themselves." 

  Bismarck is a good example.  He had Leo rising, with Moon
in Capricorn and Mars and Saturn in Aquarius.  Opinions
differ and probably always will differ about him, but that
he was a cantankerous old tyrant seems beyond dispute.
  The late C.E.M. Joad apparently led astrologers up the
garden path by producing birth data which he subsequently
revoked; but I believe it turned out he was Leo rising with
Venus and Mars conjoined in the ascendant.  He also had
Mercury conjunction Saturn, and one can question his
remarkable mental agility and his genuine interest in
philosophy, even if he did not practise philosophy in his
personal life.  He declared Astrology to be "bunk" and yet,
if I wanted a quotation to set out the philosophical basis
of my astrological belief I would go to Joad.  For, in his
Guide to Philosophy, speaking of Hegel's Axiom of Internal
Relations, he wrote "The universe on this view may be
likened to an enormous reverberating chamber, in which any
whisper, however faint, in any part, however remote, echoes
and re-echoes throughout the whole."  Hegel is a very
respectable person on whom to found one's arguments and the
mention of his name is likely to impress one's opposite
number, if only because hardly anyone understands his
philosophy nowadays, or perhaps, ever did.
  It is interesting that Joad had this conjunction of
Mercury-Saturn in his 3rd house, exactly opposed to Jupiter,
the Law, for it will be recalled that he was brought to
shame as a result of what bore the appearance of being a
deliberate attempt to defraud British Railways.
  Talking of Hegel brings me to Lord Haldane, that eminent
lawyer who was wickedly calumniated during the was because
he had said that Germany was his spiritual home.  He was an
authority on Hegel and it has been recorded that in arguing
cases in the courts he deduced everything from first
principles, so that one judge remarked that to decided
against him seemed like deciding against the existence of a
Supreme Being!  He had, like Shaw, Sun conjunction Venus in
Leo sextile Jupiter...in fact they were born only four days
apart.  But Haldane, who created the Territorial Force, had
Scorpio rising.
  Napoleon Bonaparte was born, I am fairly convinced,
Jupiter rising in Scorpio, Mars being conjunction Neptune in
grand trine with Pluto on the one hand and Uranus on the
other.  If it was not Scorpio, it must have been Libra, and
that seems to em very unlikely, if only on the grounds of
his personal appearance.  In any case he had the Sun in Leo
on the midheaven, and the peculiar thing about it is that it
has no aspect except a semisextile to Venus.  Of course
there are rumours that even the year is uncertain and it
does seem strange that so great a man...or at any rate a man
who made such a figure in the world...should have an
unaspected Sun.  If this is true, it is decidely unusual.
  Benito Mussolini might have been flattered into a belief
in Astrology if he had thought that he shared with Napoleon
a rising Scorpio and Sun in Leo.  Indeed Mussolini went much
better than Bonaparte in respect to solar aspects, of which
had had several...and good ones.  In each case it was the
Moon that took the afflictions.
  Both men had grandiose conceptions, but as human
characters one cannot find much good to say about them.
They were colossal egoists with great powers of
self-dramatisation; but it seems extremely doubtful if
either ever did a kind or unselfish act or was ever really
loved by anyone who knew him intimately.
  It is said that Leo rising is rarely happy, or, rather,
fortunate in marriage, though it is not easy to say why,
since it is such an affectionate sign.  The usual
explanation seems to be that Leos have Aquarius on the 7th,
and so the blame is put upon the back of that eccentric area
of the zodiac!
  One exception to this general rule was John Buchan, Lord
Tweedsmuir, whose "Memory Hold the Door" is such a
delightful account of a full and happy life.  He was a man
who seemed unable to find anything to dislike in anybody,
or, if he did, he promptly dismissed it from his mind.  He
had Venus and Uranus rising in Leo, and had also an exact
trine of the Sun to Neptune.  His marriage was ideally
happy.
  He was a writer and publisher and as we have said writing
does appeal to many Leos, as one form of creative work.
  James Hilton, who wrote Lost Horizon and several other
best-sellers, also had Leo rising; but his marriage
experiences conformed to the more usual type.
  Balzac had Leo rising, too, and was a prodigious writer,
usually beginning to write at midnight and continuing late
into the next day, and repeating this procedure for weeks on
end.  His data are given in Notable Nativities but I do not
know that his natus sufficiently accounts for his
peculiarities.  Like Sir Walter Scott, who had Sun, Venus
and Saturn in Leo, he suffered from financial calamity.
  William Stead was a journalist who had Jupiter rising in
Leo and was a truly Leonine man in his appearance, which
will be familiar to those who have ever been interested in
spiritualism.  He caused me considerable astonishment in my
youthful days by appearing in our office in a convict's
garb; this he wore on each anniversary of his being
sentenced in the famous "Maiden Tribute" case, broad arrows
and all.  If ever a man was physically and morally
courageous, it was certainly Stead.
  Leo does not seem to be necessarily a conventional sign
and had produced some notable eccentrics.
  Some are of the exhibitionist class, such as the
unfortunate Rector of Stiffkey and the "Great Lafayette" who
is said to have lost his life trying to rescue a favorite
lion from a fire; and perhaps some would place T.E. Lawrence
in the same category, and with better reason Aleister
Crowley, who claimed to be the most evil man in London, the
Beast of Revelation and so forth.
  Since most of them are dead I may perhaps safely say that
Uranus rising in leo does seem a rather strange factor to
have to deal with.  Uranus is the perverter, Leo the
exaggerator, and so we find Crowley exaggerating his
perverse but talented character.
  Few of us, I suppose, like being ignored, whatever our
horoscope may be, but two signs very definitely dislike
it...Leo and Capricorn.  But whereas Leo comes to the front
naturally and as to the manner born, the less pleasant sort
of Capricorn either schemes to get to the top, or else seeks
to attract attention by excessive loquacity.  Leo is no
climber because it assumes as a matter of course that it's
there already, by right of birth...or should I say by right
of birth-time?
  But a naturally shy and retiring man with Sun and Mercury
in Leo was John Galsworthy.  Perhaps the trine to Neptune
had something to do with this, also the placement of the
ruler Jupiter in Pisces, Sun was square Saturn in the 12th,
and Moon was opposed to Neptune, but these were not close.
A Leo-Libra-Sagittarius combination hardly suggests
withdrawal.  It is a somewhat difficult horoscope to
understand, but it does stress the importance of the place
of the ruler, for we can only get the withdrawal motif from
his Jupiter in Pisces, cadent.
  Of course in such a case as this it is only a personal
withdrawal; there is ample self-expression through his
writings.
  It would probably be difficult indeed to find anyone
strongly under the fifth sign who did not express himself in
some way; for the Sun must shine.
  An author whose name is chiefly associated with the young
was Dean Farrar, whose "Eric or Little by Little" was a
dreadful warning to Victorian youth.  He had both lights in
Leo, both opposed to Saturn.  Which may have made him feel
responsible for the welfare of the weaker sort of schoolboy.
  We sometimes find pleasure in listing those famous people
who have been devotees of our art and amongst these perhaps
we do not give enough prominence to John Dryden who was an
enthusiastic astrologer and had the misfortune to forcast
correctly the death of his son by drowning in the Thames.
He had Sun in 27 Leo, an astrological area.
  Pope wrote of his 

         "full resounding line,
        "The long majestic march and energy divine." 

  which is very Leo indeed.
  Other poets with the Sun in Leo are Robert Southey,
Shelley, Tennyson and Rupert Brooke, who, it is sad to
recall, was betrayed by this sign, dying of sunstroke.  I am
told that Hilaire Belloc was also a Leo; and a
characteristic one.
  I do not think Leos are very attracted to politics, at
least to modern politics, which require talents of subtlety
that would not appeal to them.  Ramsay MacDonald was a Leo,
but he was not a successful politician and passed away under
a cloud.  He had the Sun in Libra and this tends to produce
a personality that is stronger than the basis of character
so that sooner or later a certain weakness becomes apparent,
especially, of course, if the Sun is badly afflicted, as it
was in his case.
  De Valera has the same combination...Leo ascending, Sun in
Libra and is a case of a man achieving much despite having
the Moon in Scorpio, which the late C.E.Krafft declared to
be inimical to success in a marked degree.
  Earl Curzon had Leo rising and was supposed to be haughty
to an uncommon extent but others said that, apart from this,
he was a kind and courteous man.  Like many Leos he suffered
from painful spinal trouble.
  Herbert Hoover had both Lights in Leo and was active after
the first World War in relieving the stricken peoples of
Europe.
  Going farther back in history, Cardinal Richelieu had the
Moon in Leo and was conspicuously vain.  He had dramatic
ambitions, amassed great wealth and was arrogant.
  The Army does not attract Leos, at least in these days.
It my have been otherwise in the age of brilliant uniforms
and social functions.  But we may mention Lord Montgomery,
with Saturn rising in this sign.
  Finally, I must mention Dr. Jung, who has the Sun exactly
setting in Leo.  I ought to have included his name amongst
my Aquarians, since of course he has that sign rising.  Now
I make my apology.  He is said to be a kindhearted, happy
and genial man.
  It seems appropriate to end with the setting Sun.
  Despite all our satire, what a pleasant sign Leo is to
talk about!

---

© Astrological Lodge Lecture  -§-  28 November 1955
© Astrology Quarterly  -§-  Vol. 30/1

---

Bibliography | ©Copyright

---

Design © DigThatCrazyFarOutPlanetMan