It seems rather strange to me that, in these little essays
on the twelve signs, Sagittarius should have been left to
the last.
  For the Archer is not a retiring sign, by any means, and
usually has plenty to say for itself.
  Perhaps I have felt that it is not the most interesting of
the signs because there is not much subtlety about it; it is
too frank and open to puzzle anyone.  If this is not the
case in individual Sagittarians, it is not because of the
native being born under this sign, but because of something
else in the natus.
  The key-note of the sign appears to be the desire to
overpass the limitations of time, space and matter.
  It is interesting to contrast it with three signs in
particular.
  It differs from Scorpio in that this sign dissects and
analyses; it is the sign of the microscope, whereas
Sagittarius is the sign of the telescope, always looking far
afield, seeking the universal, the all-comprehensive.  I
would call them two seeking signs.  Indeed, Virgo and
Capricorn seek, also, but they are usually more devoted to
practical ends.  Sagittarius, and in this respect we may
bracket it with Aquarius, seeks truth for truth's sake.
  I would say the Sagittarian failing, in this search, is
lack of continuity and patience, and sometimes, perhaps a
tendency to credulity.  As might be expected of an archer,
its methods are somewhat of the hit-and-miss variety and if
one arrow misses, it can always draw another from its more
or less inexhaustible quiver, and try again.  Statistical
research is not what one would expect of the typical
Sagittarian.  It works rather by intuition and the more
patient signs must check its intuitional flashes.
  We have often found a sharp contrast between a sign and
those that stand in quincunx to it; and in this case Cancer
and Taurus certainly have little in common with Sagittarius.
Taurus is the most stable of the signs; Sagittarius the
least so.  Cancer is the most prudent and circumspect;
Sagittarius, with the possible exception of Aries, is
imprudent and notoriously extravagant both in expenditure
and in language.
  Certainly it can claim to be one of the most popular
signs, with its free and easy manners, general affability,
fund of funny stories and readiness to help others.
Especially with advice.  In company it can be indeed a real
tonic when it is in "good form."
  It is, of course, frequently considered to be a great
sportsman.  I think this needs qualification.
  Our last Sagittarian monarch, Edward VII, was a devotee of
the race course, and so was an outstanding Sagittarian
astrologer, Sepharial.  George V (Jupiter in Sagittarius)
was a competent gunman, and his son George VI
(Sun-Sagittarius) was an above the average tennis player.  I
also note, among my list of natives of the sign, Lindbergh,
Max Schmeling and a "stunt aviator." But upon the whole, I
should look to a strong Mars element for most kinds of
sport, at any rate those that involve severe training, for
your Jovian naturally dislikes discipline and likes bodily
comfort.  Schmeling, the boxer, had Mars rising in the sign.
Sagittarians would prefer sports that are exciting and
perhaps dangerous to those that mean rigorous preparation
and physical pain.
  However, it is well to bear in mind that the great star
Antares, the "dying giant" of our galaxy, falls in 8
Sagittarius, and that this degree, therefore, is strongly
Martian, for Antares is in the constellation Scorpio, and
the nature of the fixed stars depends on the constellation
occupied, not the sign.
  Churchill has his Sun in this area.
  Antares may be seen in our latitudes, in the summer
southern sky.  It is too near the horizon to make a great
show, being commonly seen only through a haze.  But its dull
red glow seems to mark it as the most Scorpionic of the
first magnitude stars, if indeed such things are a pointer
to the nature of the stars, as I think they may well be.
  There is another star, this time of the second magnitude
and named Isidis, which is in 1.5 Sagittarius but in the
constellation Scorpio; and presumably this also had a Mars
value.
  It is close to the ecliptic, and so also is Sabik, which
is of the second magnitude too.
  This is in Ophiuchus, the Snake-Holder, and is related in
mythology to the story about Hercules and the two serpents
sent to destroy him in his cradle by the jealous Juno.  It
falls in 17 Sagittarius and it is possible that it may be
related to dangers in childhood.
  This is an area that I have suggested as connected with
crime and judicial punishment.
  A form of sport especially connected with our sign is
hunting.
  I wonder whether Chaucer deliberately set out zodiacal
types in his pilgrims.  It looks like it.  What more Aries
that the Miller whose amusement was butting doors off their
hinges by charging at them?  The Prioress who ate so
daintily and "let no morsel from her lippes fall" was
unmistakably Virgo.
  But the cleric who neglected his duties in order to go
hunting and otherwise have a good time was a real
Sagittarian:
      "Why should he swinke and drive himselven wode
       As Austin bit? How should the world be served?
       Let Austin have his swink to him reserved!"
  In other words, why should he toil and drive himself crazy
as St. Augustine enjoined?  What good would it do anyone
anyway?  Let Augustine keep his toil to himself!
  Another quality often ascribed to our sign is that of
being a great traveller and explorer.
  Mentally this is undoubtedly true.  Travelling, of course,
is so common nowadays, either for pleasure or business or
both.  I have always considered the Moon and Cancer as being
the real rovers of the zodiac.  They roam from place to
place, whereas perhaps Sagittarius, as becomes an archer,
has definite aims and objects.
  Sagittarius is also said to incline to philosophy,
religion and the law.
  With the first two attributions I should agree.
  Both philosophy and religion deal with universals and have
an almost unlimited scope.  Indeed one might say that one
may write almost anything, sensible or nonsensical, on these
subjects and get some sort of hearing.  The Archer is, as we
have said, a truth-seeking sign.  Furthermore, it is
benevolent, which would account for a religious proclivity.
It is also a natural psychologist and rather fancies itself,
if I may put it so, as a "doctor of souls."
  I can commend "Sagittarius and religion" as a fruitful
field for statistical investigation.  But it would not do to
exclude Venus, as M. Gauquelin does. Nor would it do to make
the Sun in Sagittarius the principal item for study.  The
Moon and Venus seem the bodies most commonly placed in this
sign.
  Dorothy Kerin, who was miraculously healed of several
diseases and has since devoted herself entirely to spiritual
ministrations, has Venus rising in Sagittarius, and so has
Aimee Semple Macpherson, one time famous American
revivalist.  I have the horoscope of a Burmese boy-preacher,
a sort of infant prodigy who preached to vast crowds; he has
Venus exactly on the M.C. in Sagittarius.
  In "1001 Nativities" we have a nun (No.667) with Venus
conjunction Saturn in this sign, whilst No.95 "Buddhist
Priest" has Venus there.  So also Archbishop Usher, No. 600,
and also a man known to me personally who has been a
successful nonconformist minister.  Leslie Whitehead has
Moon and Venus there.
  Two Trappists have the Gemini polarity stressed but
nothing in Sagittarius.
  Swami Krishnananda (N.N. 225) had the Moon in our sign.
  Swami Vivekenanda had Sun and Venus in Capricorn so that
we shall have to fall back upon the doctrine of antiscions
to bring him in.
  Some aspects of religion certainly point to a Capricorn
influence.
  When we wish to make a statistical investigation it will
not do to pick some planet or planets in an arbitrary manner
and then expend an immense amount of time and energy on what
will prove to be quite a fruitless quest.  Examen a few
outstanding cases and try to get a promising clue.  Treat it
as a clue and as nothing more at that stage and make no
extravagant claims.  Then proceed to collect your hundreds
and thousands of cases if you like and see if the results
will warrant a hypothesis.  The more confirmation you get,
the stronger the hypothesis will become.  But it will take a
long time before a trained statistician will allow you to
talk of proof.
  Therefore all I say is that the aphorism Moon or Venus in
Sagittarius indicates an interest in religion is a promising
clue.
  When we come to the Law and Lawyers the question is
difficult.  For there are several branches of the law.
These often differ in the sort of work done and the
qualities required.  But Scorpio seems, a priori, a likelier
sign than Sagittarius because it would cover Chancery
work...the "gods of the dead"...and also criminal law.  It
might also be appropriate to Admiralty work.  I cannot see
our Jovian spending his life in chambers poring over wills
and settlements and hardly ever seeing the inside of a court
of law.
  The restrictive aspect of the law is certainly Saturnian.
But after all the law does inform as to what we may do as
well as what we musn't, and without law we should not have
freedom so much as anarchy.  Sagittarius would hardly go far
as that, except under grave afflictions.
  Briefly, such maps of lawyers as I have examined show no
evidence at all of a Sagittarian prominence.
  In fact it is not easy to say what occupation one would
advise for Sagittarius.  Most often we shall find that the
native of the sign changes his job frequently and tries
first one thing and then another.  One need not worry about
this; it is the nature of the sign, and it probably gathers
a certain amount of moss in its rolling.
  Probably its greatest asset, in most cases, is that it
does possess the "human touch."  It has a natural flair for
getting on with people.  It does not frighten or overawe
them.  It is sociable and a good mixer.  Perhaps you may say
this would fit it for the trade of confidence-trickster, and
I daresay a good few of this fraternity have a Sagittarian
element in their maps.  The "innocent abroad" who might
instinctively sheer away from Scorpio is deceived by the
apparent open-heartedness of the Jovian.  Is it altogether a
coincidence that so many confidence men bait their hook with
tales with a Spanish background?  Or at least they used to
do so!
  The same natural gifts would make a good salesman, who
after all, has to win confidence in himself and his wares
and recommendations, and must know just how to approach each
potential buyer and "spin a tale."
  Of course the Sagittarian is an optimist and can imbue
others with hopes of easy gains because he is given to the
same sort of illusions himself.
  Such devices as the "never, never" appeal to him, for his
own ideas of time are vague and general and the future must
look after itself.
  Labour-saving apparatus appeals to him too because he
dislikes drudgery.
  Furthermore, he likes gambling; a life without excitement
is altogether too dull.  The gentleman who runs the "pools"
undoubtedly owes a lot to Sagittarius.
  Considering all this, I should always try to find a good
secondary indication of occupation as well as a prominent
Sagittarian element.
  But perhaps three or four possible professions might be
mentioned for consideration:

  1. As already suggested, salesmanship and perhaps in
particular the sale of cars, horses and sporting apparatus.
  2. The sea, where our subject would get plenty of change
and also some wholesome discipline.
  3. The Stock Exchange, in which case one would look for a
supplementary Taurus feature.
  4. Journalism.
  5. In spite of what has been said about Sagittarius and
travelling, probably many sons of the sign find employment
in long-distance transport.  For example, as air-hostesses
or lorry-drivers on our great main roads.

  The great period for Sagittarius was undoubtedly that of
the great explorations and discoveries.  I have placed this
as being from 1440 to 1620.  Printing and the diffusion of
knowledge; the Reformation; the discovery of America and the
great expeditions by sea.  How the Sagittarian influence
comes out!  Even in very personal matters, such as the
sudden appearance of beards.  All our male monarchs wore
beards from Henry VIII to Charles I.  And the emphasis, in
dress, on the Sagittarian portions of the body; the doublets
which by the time of James I, assumed absurd dimensions.
  The great sea-captains, Drake, Raleigh, Hawkins and the
rest, must have had very much of the Sagittarian in their
genitures!
  After America, our great expansions were in India, Africa
and Australia.
  I have nothing to tell about Robert Clive or Captain Cook,
whose birthday is uncertain.  But of course Cecil Rhodes had
Sagittarius rising.
  This man had a complete disinterest in women; and this may
bring us to say a few words about our sign as a wife or
husband.
  I have little personal experience to go on, but one would
hardly expect Sagittarians to be very domesticated or by
nature strictly monogamous.  Variety of experience appeals
to a Sagittarian as a most desirable thing in itself; and
they might expect their marriage partners to share this view
and to be prepared to turn a tolerant eye to the
extra-marital adventures of their better halves.  Perhaps it
would be right to say that your typical Sagittarian is good
natured but not exactly unselfish and frankly I would go so
far as to say that many wives have to put up with a good
deal from their Sagittarian husbands.  On the whole small
things matter more to women than to men, and they matter
very little to the Sagittarian who is apt to drop tobacco
ash and matches on the best carpet and to rest his feet on
the settee, and so on and so forth.
  Perhaps by coincidence I have known two or three marriages
between Virgos and Sagittarians...attraction by opposites, I
suppose.
  The Virgo wife's pride and joy was a cabinet of little
china animals and other knick knacks, which she sedulously
took out and dusted daily.  This irritated her Sagittarian
husband intensely; and he retorted by "spludging" potatoes
on his plate and other similar habits.  This marriage ended
in divorce.
  The Sagittarian wife of a Virgo husband tells me she has
to be constantly "at him," or he would sink into mere
inanition.  Poor chap, he is nearly 80, half-blind and deaf,
so most people would let him bide.  But Sagittarius doesn't
believe in growing old.  One must be on the go all the time.
It can be a wearing sign.  There is a certain "too muchness"
about it.
  I hope I am fair to it.  Not that it will mind in the
least for it can give and take with a will.
  Apropos of its attitude in marriage we may recall Shelley,
who seriously suggested, in the kindness of his heart, that
his first wife should accompany him and his second bride on
their honeymoon "because she always wanted to see Italy."
  Also that strange Elizabethan pair, John Dee and Edward
Kelley, his evil genius.
  Dee was an astrologer and also a most credulous believer
in "spirits." Kelley "skried" for him, and a farrago of
rubbish he produced, much of it having a bearing on the
transmutation of baser metals into gold, the sort of mad
schemes that might dupe a Sagittarian.  Characteristically
it was all mixed up with quasi-religious utterances.  Dee
was a learned man and most venerable in appearance, but he
was certainly also an old fool.
  But the point I am coming to is that Kelley produced a
communication purporting to come from some angel and
enjoining upon these two Sagittarians a community of wives.
This was too much for Mrs. Dee, devoted and long-suffering
though she appears to have been, and it went no further.
  I have said that the sign has a gift for understanding
human nature, but this seems to fail when it comes to
selecting a marriage partner.  I suppose one cannot blame
Mary Queen of Scots for her first two unhappy marriages, for
they were more or less forced upon her; but when she chose
for herself, she did no better with the brutal Bothwell.
  John Milton also married three times...not an uncommon
fact for Sagittarius...but his first choice was unfortunate
and he became a keen advocate of easy divorce, a daring
cause to champion in those days one would suppose.
  The Emperor Nero had the Sun and Mars rising in
Sagittarius in square to Saturn. Mercury was in the 12th, in
the same sign, and 75½ from Uranus, which may allow us to
suppose that was near insane.  He also married thrice.  His
brutalities may be ascribed to Mars square Saturn, for
Sagittarius would hardly be cruel, though it might easily be
impatient and inconsiderate.
  Except for his notorious extravagance it is not easy to
see Sagittarian qualities in this monster.  His vanity led
him to claim pre-eminence in many fields, and
chariot-driving was one of them.  He may have had a genuine
love of art.  Perhaps there is something Sagittarian in the
strange fact that he was always popular with the common
people, who cherished a belief that he had never really died
but would re-appear to claim his rights.
  His persecution of the Christians agrees with afflictions
in Sagittarius and his tutor was the philosopher, Seneca,
whom he subsequently compelled to commit suicide.
  As for Nero's love of art it is true that many natives of
Sagittarius are gifted in this way.  Among the poets we have
already mentioned Milton and Shelley, and there are also
Yeats (Jupiter-Sagittarius), De Musset (Neptune, Saturn, Sun
and Mercury), and William Blake (Sun and Jupiter).
  One would expect mutable-fire with Jupiter as ruler, to be
a talented sign with many possibilities, and this is indeed
the case.
  Two great musicians:
  Beethoven, Sun Moon, Mercury in Sagittarius, the Sun being
at the end of the sign and conjoined with Jupiter at the
beginning of Capricorn.  The Sagittarian planets were
opposed to Mars in Gemini.
  Berlioz, Sun and Mercury in Sagittarius, conjunction Mars;
ascendant Cancer with Moon in Scorpio.
  Has Mars more to do with music than would at first sight
seem likely?
  Kipling had Mercury-Mars-Venus in Sagittarius and it is
not difficult to see this influence in his works, both in
his best and his worst.
  I believe he actually introduced the phrase "the common
touch." Then there are his stories about animals, with whom
many Sagittarians find themselves more at home than with
humans.  And in "Kim" we have a lama and Pathan horse-dealer
as two of the principal characters, whilst the whole story
is really a sort of saga of the Great Trunk Road, a most
Sagittarian background.
  Nietzsche had Sagittarius rising.
  It will be noted that there is often something
ungovernable in contrast to the general benevolence of
Jupiter.  There is the rough uncouthness of Beethoven and
the addiction to strong language recorded of Kipling.  I
consider there is a connection between this sign and Uranus.
  A lady whose nativity could well be made the subject of a
detailed study is Queen Christina of Sweden.
  She had both Lights conjoined in Sagittarius on the I.C.
squared by Saturn rising in Virgo, Jupiter being with Mars
in Scorpio.
  Her father caused her to be brought up as if she had been
of his own sex and this strange education left a strong and
lasting influence upon her.  She often dressed as a man and
rode her horse astride.  Intellectually well endowed, she
did her best to ruin her country and its Protestantism and
finally she dies, neglected and forgotten, in Rome, living
on the charity of the Pope, and having been forced to
abdicate.
  This story is curious, for it would be more fitting for
the native to have had the Sun and Moon rising in
Sagittarius and Saturn on the midheaven.
  Among the intellectuals she invited to her court was the
French philosopher Descartes, who arrived in mid-winter and
found that he was expected to report at the palace at four
in the morning to instruct his royal pupil.  In order to get
there he had to cross a wind-swept bridge over a frozen
river, and before long he succumbed to this inconsiderate
treatment.
  Among her crazy schemes was to be a treaty with Spain, a
Sagittarian country, with which of course Sweden had no
common interests at all.
  In his excellent manual M. Barbault writes of this queen:
  "Christina has also the introverted side of the
Sagittarian, with her Saturnian aspect.  She has a profound
taste for the sciences and for philosophy; she studies, she
explores different disciplines, learns languages ancient and
foreign, enters into communication with the great minds of
her age and strives to attract to the Swedish court the
savants she admires.  Also she has been celebrated as the
"new Minerva," the "Swedish Pallas."
  But love of liberty must have the last word, ruling
passion as it is.  Do her tastes reject marriage?  She
prefers to renounce power.  She is but 28 years of age; she
lays aside her crown stating clearly from that time onwards
she will be able to do all that seems good to her without
being compelled to any act of subjection or obedience and
without having to render account except to God for her past
actions and conduct any more than for those she will perform
after her abdication.  No more rank to uphold, protocol to
observe, retinue to maintain,; this savage centaur is
carried away with freedom and abandon, almost with
indifference, and sails before the wind in the course of an
existence of travel, adventure and noise, far from her
native land."
  We shall of course find much in this map besides the
Lights in Sagittarius square Saturn,
  M. Barbault gives us another early-modern geniture of
interest, viz. that of Madame Maintenon, mistress and later
the second wife of Louis XIV.  She was religious lady and
did her best, seemingly, to keep the aging monarch on the
straight and narrow path.
  The positions are appropriate to the serious type of
Archer.
  Sun and Venus in conjunction in Sagittarius, square
Jupiter in Virgo, Mercury conjoined with Saturn at the
beginning of Capricorn.
  From the same work I take the data of the painter Henri
Toulouse-Lautrec.  Sun-Jupiter-Mercury in Sagittarius
opposed to Mars, ruler of the Scorpio ascendant.
  Lautrec was born into an extremely wealthy and
aristocratic family.  He had the misfortune to break both
thighs and became something of a dwarf, unable to gratify
the Jovian desire for physical exercise.  So his dynamism
worked itself off in painting scenes from music hall,
ballet, the circus and so on, and unfortunately in sensual
excesses and alcoholism.  He ended his days in an asylum.
He appears to have been a good-natured little man.  There
has been a recent exhibition of his work at the Tate
Gallery.
  Recently Sir John Reith was interviewed on TV and my
impression that he was a Sagittarian-Scorpio was confirmed
when I found his natus in Maurice Wemyss' collection.
  What struck me was his declaration that he had always
wanted to "extend himself fully"...I think those were his
exact words.  Certainly "extension" is about as Sagittarian
a word as one could wish; but why this passion for hard
work?
  For the Moon was in Taurus, and Sun and Mars in Cancer.  I
admit Cancer can be a very industrious sign; still the map
was apart from the ascending sign, rather negative.
  However, the actual degree given as ascendant is 1
Sagittarius which introduces the star Isidis already
mentioned as being in the constellation Scorpio; and in any
case I always allow a certain "back-log" with ascendants.
  Sir John, during his tenure of office at the B.B.C., was
known as a strict moralist and deeply religious.
  He is an exceptionally tall man, and this is a common
circumstance with Sagittarians. A tall spare figure, slight
stoop, baldness, or at least receding hair, and, usually, a
fair complexion...that makes up the true Sagittarian type.
But we all know how difficult a subject is zodiacal
physique.
  One of the most brilliant Sagittarian maps I have ever
seen is that of William Pitt, Lord Chatham, thought by some
to have been our greatest orator and a passionate upholder of
the cause of freedom, at home and abroad.
  Ascendant 4 Sagittarius, Mercury in 23 of the same sign,
in trine to Uranus in Leo and in sextile to a lovely
conjunction of Venus and Jupiter in Libra.
  This map at least presents no problem; we shall feel that
it is exactly as it should be.
  With this brief notice of a true noble-man we may close
our Sagittarian picture gallery.
  I think you will agree that it has been an interesting one.

---

© Astrological Lodge Lecture on 13 March 1961
© Astrology Quarterly Vol.36/4

---

Bibliography | ©Copyright