An Astrological Question
Lucifer, September, 1888
Over the ambitious signature of “Magus” a correspondent asks in your July issue, “What is planetary influence and how does it act on man?” “Nemo” in his reply answers other questions but fails to answer this one.
Not being myself a Magus I will not assume to fully describe planetary influence, since to do so would lead us into realms quite beyond our comprehension. But we will get a better idea of the subject by recollecting that the ancients always considered the “ambient”—or entire heavens—at birth, as being that which affected man, and that planets were only the pointers or indices showing when and where the influence of the “ambient” would be felt. The modern astrologers, following those great leaders, but unable to grasp the enormous subject, reduced the scheme to the influences of planets. They have thus come to leave out, to a great extent, influences cast by powerful stars, which often produce effects not to be sought for under planets: “When such stars have rule nor wise nor fool can stay their influence.” The planets were held, rightly as I think, to be only foci for “the influence of the whole ambient,” having however a power of their own of a secondary nature exercisable when the ambient influence was weak.
When London was burnt a mighty star—not a planet—had rule, and Napoleon was prefigured by a star also, his fall being due in fact to the aspect of the heavens as a whole, and not to the ruling of Wellington’s significator. A slight accident might have thrown the power of the latter out of the horary held. Similarly, the cyclic vicissitudes of this globe will not be shown by any planetary scheme, but by certain stars that fix the destiny of poor Earth. When they have their day and term the wise man will be unable to rule his own stars or any other.