[BNP/E3, 905 – 41]
Notes on Astrology.
(The Baldaya Attributions)
II
One of the most curious things, among the many curious things included in Baldaya’s system, was the use he made of these rulerships for the interpretation of the things signified by the houses. The method is, of course, independent of the attributions themselves, and stands or falls by itself, whether the attributions be right or/the traditional ones, with which it may be used, are the correct ones. (which it was meant to supersede)
The method was as follows. Baldaya considered each house as signifying four different types of things; the trouble for most of us, with, at least, some houses, is to make as little as that. Anyhow, Baldaya considered each house as signifying four kinds of things, each type being respectively of the nature of the Sun, of the Ascendant, of the Moon and of the Midheaven, these being the four abstract points out of which all essential directions, for example, are evolved.
The most curious part is the way in which judgment, according to Baldaya, was made about these four types of things. Judgment of those related to the Sun was made (apart from planets posited in the house itself, which we will consider later) by the ruler of the house by domicile; judgment of those related to the Ascendant by the ruler of the house by exaltation; judgment of those related to the Moon by the ruler of the opposite sign and house by domicile (the Moon being by nature the anti-Sun); and judgment of those related to the Midheaven by the ruler of the opposite house by exaltation (the Midheaven being the anti-Ascendant by nature also).
I remember very partially and imperfectly the Baldaya attributions in respect of house significance; his system of never taking notes resulted in his leaving none. But I do remember the four attributions of the fifth house, owing to an extensive interpretation he once made of the nativity of an actor. He considered the fifth house as ruling (1) under the Sun, speculation and chance in fortune, (2) under the Moon, love affairs, (3) under the Ascendant children, (4) under the Midheaven spectacular art, whether directly or indirectly so. I remember his mentioning the popular proverb that those who are lucky in gambling are unlucky in love, and he cited
[41v]
this as an instance of how right it was the the ruler under the Solar signification should be the opposite of the ruler und the Lunar, though I think this, or any other, proverb or popular opinion did not enter into his development of his idea. He also pointed out, in respect of the other set of significations, that there was a natural opposition between the domestic life, and particularly children, and the spectacular forms of art – actor, society women, and all such under the Midheaven attribution of the fifth house, being notoriously indifferent to children, when not patently averse to them.
Let us suppose an unoccupied fifth house, with Scorpio on the cusp. Baldaya would judge speculation and chance by the position and aspects of Mars, love affairs from the position and aspects of Venus, children from the position and aspect of Jupiter and (if he could) would have judge spectacular art from the position and aspects of the planet Y, if he knew where it was. It was, indeed, in respect of his inability to decide as to the actor’s special questions that he talked so much about these points; and my remembrance of them is derived from that. Baldaya, of course, was considerably hampered by the three unknown planets he posited. In some ways he was not speculative, and therefore, unlike Maurice Wemyss, he did not strive to conjecture where such planets might be and what their motions probably were, though more than once he hinted to me that it would be an interesting inquiry, if he had the patience even to think of it.
I set down these things for what they may be worth, and it is quite possible they are not worth much. Still, I cannot forget many marvels of interpretation, delving, in character and fate, right deep into the man and the life, and this makes me shy of disposing of the whole matter with a random query. I need not add that those interpretations were duly explained, that is to say referred to the planets and aspects; otherwise they might have been of the mediumnic nature of some types of intuition, which can make of astrology a cartomancy of the stars.
III.
{…}
