Follow the library

See also


The javascript bookmark tool appears to not be working or you have javascript disabled  

Like this page on Facebook

Like THL on Facebook


+1 this page on Google

+1 THL on Google



The javascript metadata tool appears to not be working or you have javascript disabled



Join the
Hermetic Library discussions
at the

Hrmtc Underground BBS






IT has often been a source of bewilderment to the student that, with such small variations in the heavens, the variations should be so large on earth. Everybody has just as many signs and planets as everybody else; yet one man is a nobody and another is more than half divine. No study of aspects as such can explain the fact. They “work,” more or less, when they are far from being exact; and, on the theory of probabilities, it would seem as if at least a third of the human race should be of noble calibre. As a fact, hardly one man in ten thousand leaves even a transient mark upon his generation. How is this? The problem has always baffled astrologers and encouraged their critics. In fact, few astrologers have fairly faced it.


What is the difference between an amoeba and an elephant? The cells of which an elephant is composed are one and all not very dissimilar from the amoeba. The difference is that one is varied and organized, a harmonious republic; the other remains single.

What is the difference, to go higher in the scale of evolution, between a monkey and a man? The answer is similar. It is not so much the size and weight of the brain that differ; some men with small brains have been the intellectual superiors of men with large brains. But if we take the brain of an ape and that of a man from their envelopes, a radical difference becomes immediately patent. The convolutions in the ape are few and simple; in the man they are many and complex.

There lies the great secret; the men who mould the destinies of humanity are the most evolved and therefore the most highly complex types. They are not men who have small interests here, and small functions there; they have built up every factor in their being {vii} into a single composite pattern. Often the manifestations of the complex will be widely divergent, on the surface, but this is only another symptom of the complexity. All this is explained by Astrology.


A glance at the horoscopes of the greatest men of whom we have record shows that, generally speaking, the planets form exact or very close aspects, and also – this is the important point – that all, or very nearly all, the planets are interwoven. Sometimes we find two or three complexes in a nativity, perhaps even four; and these have no close relation with one another. Such horoscopes are those of commonplace people. It is as if they had several strands in their nature which had not been properly interwoven. As a result, there are times when one is at work in its own feeble way; then it is forgotten, and another comes into operation. The lack of continuity is fatal to the performance of any constructive work. If such a person should acquire fame, it is the result of some action suddenly conceived and executed, or because of an apparent accident. A few examples of great horoscopes will make these points certain.

Shakespeare, to begin with, has all nine planets in a single complex. Five of them are in aspect within three degrees, and only one is more than ten degrees from the very farthest.

Dante may be said to have two complexes, one of five planets, all within six degrees; another of four, all within nine degrees; and one complex is only nine degrees from the other.

Michael Angelo has six planets within six degrees, with a seventh only four degrees, and an eighth only three degrees away.

Petrarch has six planets within six and a half degrees, and the other three within ten degrees.

Sir Richard Burton has five planets within five degrees and the other four within seven degrees.

Bismarck has seven planets within ten degrees, the other two within four degrees.

Edison has six within eleven degrees; the others within eight degrees.

Shelley has five within eight degrees; three within two and a half {viii} degrees, and the other only six degrees from a conjunction with one of the larger complex.

Zola has all nine within eleven degrees; Copernicus, eight within the same limit.

Goethe has two distinct complexes, one of six planets, within thirteen degrees, the other of three within seven degrees.

Napoleon has six within ten degrees, three within three and a half degrees, and the one is but eight degrees from the other.

Newton has three within one and a half degrees, three within five and a half degrees, and three within seven degrees.

Balzac has four within nine degrees, five within ten degrees, and the two complexes are related within seven degrees.

Wagner has five within five degrees, three within six degrees, and the last only five degrees away.

Baudelaire has two complexes within ten degrees, one of five planets and the other of four.

Pasteur has six planets within six and a half degrees, two within three degrees, and the Moon, which stands aloof, is by far the least important of the host of heaven.

Swinburne has six planets within five degrees, the rest within one and a quarter degrees.

If we had chosen to include minor aspects, such as forty-five degrees and one hundred and thirty-five degrees, or the quincunx and sesquiquadrate an even stronger case could have been made out; but it is undesirable to introduce too much subtlety into an argument of this sort; we prefer to base it only upon obvious and patent facts.


In the investigation of any nativity, it is quite useless to content oneself, as is too frequently done, with the consideration of planets in pairs. These will give details of the native, it is true; but it is the complex which decides on what scale these details are to be interpreted. Zola had Saturn trine to Mercury, which made him great in construction. But had not this aspect been merely part of a mighty complex, it would have made him a good merchant, a clever lawyer, or something comparatively common. {ix}

Shelley's conjunction of Mars and Jupiter is very differently effective from that aspect in the horoscope of the late J. P. Morgan. Why? Because they form parts of complexes of quite opposite natures. The mere fact that one is in Leo and the other in Libra would not account for the difference. And here it is that we must emphasize the necessity of looking not only for the complex, but for the key to it.

Two men might have identical aspects and yet be utterly different just because in one case the Lord of the Ascendant was Mars and in the other Venus. It is not always easy to divine the secret pivot on which a complex swings. The Lord of the Ascendant is usually the cardinal point, but if there be several planets or even one very strong planet rising, he may be overwhelmed by them or it and his place in heaven, as it were, usurped. And it is of the utmost importance that this fundamental planet be detected with accuracy; for it makes all the difference in the world whether we regard the other planets as modifying Saturn or Jupiter. If the native be a Saturnian at heart, the trine of Jupiter will flavor his selfish plans; if a Jupiterian, the trine of Saturn will restrict and balance his enthusiasms. The conjunction of the Sun and Venus which made Shelley so glorious an incarnation of Light and Beauty would hardly have acted in that way had Scorpio, not Sagittarius, been his ascendant. It is the Lord, Jupiter, culminating in conjunction with Mars and Neptune, that determines the disposition, and the superiority of the Sun in Leo to Venus that made effective the manifestation of that disposition in the heart through art; had those planets been influenced by Pisces, for example, it would have shown itself in some soft shadowy way.

Enough has been said for a preliminary account of this matter; in the course of these pages we shall pile Pelion upon Ossa, and Ossa upon Olympus, in demonstration of this secret of the Astrological Complex.


Previous | Index | Next

Introduction | THE SUN SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | The Sun | The Sun in the Signs | The Sun in Aries | The Sun in Taurus | The Sun in Gemini | The Sun in Cancer | The Sun in Leo | The Sun in Virgo | The Sun in Libra | The Sun in Scorpio | The Sun in Sagittarius | The Sun in Capricorn | The Sun in Aquarius | The Sun in Pisces | Periods When The Sun Will Be Afflicted by Uranus | Periods When The Sun Will Be Beneficently Aspected by Uranus | Periods When The Sun Will Be Afflicted by Saturn | Periods When The Sun Will Be Beneficently Aspected by Jupiter | THE MOON SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | The Moon | The Moon in the Signs | The Moon in Aries | The Moon in Taurus | The Moon in Gemini | The Moon in Cancer | The Moon in Leo | The Moon in Virgo | The Moon in Libra | The Moon in Scorpio | The Moon in Sagittarius | The Moon in Capricorn | The Moon in Aquarius | The Moon in Pisces | MERCURY SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Mercury in the Signs | Mercury in Aries | Mercury in Taurus | Mercury in Gemini | Mercury in Cancer | Mercury in Leo | Mercury in Virgo | Mercury in Libra | Mercury in Scorpio | Mercury in Sagittarius | Mercury in Capricorn | Mercury in Aquarius | Mercury in Pisces | VENUS SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Venus in the Signs | Venus in Aries | Venus in Taurus | Venus in Gemini | Venus in Cancer | Venus in Leo | Venus in Virgo | Venus in Libra | Venus in Scorpio | Venus in Sagittarius | Venus in Capricorn | Venus in Aquarius | Venus in Pisces | MARS SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Mars in the Signs | Mars in Aries | Mars in Taurus | Mars in Gemini | Mars in Cancer | Mars in Leo | Mars in Virgo | Mars in Libra | Mars in Scorpio | Mars in Sagittarius | Mars in Capricorn | Mars in Aquarius | Mars in Pisces | JUPITER SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Jupiter in the Signs | Jupiter in Aries | Jupiter in Taurus | Jupiter in Gemini | Jupiter in Cancer | Jupiter in Leo | Jupiter in Virgo | Jupiter in Libra | Jupiter in Scorpio | Jupiter in Sagittarius | Jupiter in Capricorn | Jupiter in Aquarius | Jupiter in Pisces | The Effects of Jupiter on Vocation | SATURN SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Saturn in the Signs | Saturn in Aries | Saturn in Taurus | Saturn in Gemini | Saturn in Cancer | Saturn in Leo | Saturn in Virgo | Saturn in Libra | Saturn in Scorpio | Saturn in Sagittarius | Saturn in Capricorn | Saturn in Aquarius | Saturn in Pisces | URANUS SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Uranus in the Signs | Uranus in Aries | Uranus in Taurus | Uranus in Gemini | Uranus in Cancer | Uranus in Leo | Uranus in Virgo | Uranus in Libra | Uranus in Scorpio | Uranus in Sagittarius | Uranus in Capricorn | Uranus in Aquarius | Uranus in Pisces | NEPTUNE SYMBOLICALLY CONSIDERED | Neptune in the Signs | Neptune in Aries | Neptune in Taurus | Neptune in Gemini | Neptune in Cancer | Neptune in Leo | Neptune in Virgo | Neptune in Libra | Neptune in Scorpio | Neptune in Sagittarius | Neptune in Capricorn | Neptune in Aquarius | Neptune in Pisces | Diseases of Neptune | The Problem of Death | One Hundred Horoscopes of Famous People

Your Place Among The Stars


Articles | Books | Collections | Correspondence | Diaries | Dramatic Works | Libers | Orders | Other | Poetry

The Libri of Aleister Crowley

Home | Features | Fellows | Figures | Forms | Reflections | About | Contact | Participate | Become a Patron

Hermetic Hosting | Hermeneuticon | Hrmtc Underground


— fileinfo: path: '../' created: 2016-03-15 modified: 2016-03-15 …


If you have found this material useful or enlightening, you may also be interested in


Ordo Templi Orientis, O.T.O., and the O.T.O. Lamen design are registered trademarks of Ordo Templi Orientis.


All copyrights on Aleister Crowley material are held by Ordo Templi Orientis. This site is not an official O.T.O. website, and is neither sponsored by nor controlled by Ordo Templi Orientis.

The text of this Aleister Crowley material is made available here only for personal and non-commercial use. This material is provided here in a convenient searchable form as a study resource for those seekers looking for it in their research. For any commercial use, please contact Ordo Templi Orientis.