Isn’t that interesting! Thanks for the tidbit. I wonder if that has been going on with the presidential candidates this year as well.

Best wishes,
Nina

I think it’s because Capricorn is the domicile and exaltation of both malefics. In traditional texts, heavy malefic influence is supposed to make people, especially women, immoral.

Best wishes,
Nina

I think this is because shame, at its core, is fear of exposure of one’s own essential “badness.” If a person responds fearlessly to having his badness exposed, then the existence of “proper shame” is in doubt: You must not *really* feel you are bad if you deny, excuse or fight the charges. That’s why we see it as so important that public officials are “chagrined” or “contrite” when they’re caught: Contrition is evidence of proper shame.

My instinct would be to look also at the Mars/Venus relationship to Saturn, and at Saturn’s general placement in the chart, to understand the person’s particular shame dynamic. Now I’m going to go spelunking through my files to see what I can see. Thanks – great food for thought.

Thanks for sharing. Good point about Capricorn rising; there might be shameless people who really just couldn’t care less, but there are those who do care, but do what they want regardless.

Several of the people listed in the post did not intend to get caught, but their actions were made public regardless. Is that shamelessness? Perhaps the way they reacted to their outing is the shameless part; they all went on to try to exonerate themselves publicly, instead of embracing their guilt in a genuine way.

Best wishes,
Nina

Thanks for your comment; I think the concept of shame is an interesting one. The main thing to keep in mind is that this was written about 1500+ years ago, from the perspective of a conservative, traditional society.

Shamelessness in this context seems to have to do with gender norms and general double standards. Note that Aphorism 25 refers to women only, though there are plenty of men with that configuration who are indeed shameless.

To me, the way we view this aphorism today has a lot to do with societal expectations and the fascinating ways they’ve changed. Obviously, when this text was written, it was OK for men to be publicly immoral, but not women. Today, it is OK for both sexes to be publicly immoral. I can’t help but wonder if this is what passes for progress.

Best wishes,
Nina

Thanks for your very good point. I think you are right, but I could see a publicly immoral melancholic or phlegmatic. Just in a low-energy kind of way. I think it has more to do with the overall quality of the chart; I wouldn’t want to label a choleric more likely to be shameless; a phlegmatic with the wrong kind of chart just wouldn’t care, either.

Best wishes,
Nina

You are right; also, Capricorn is the domicile of Saturn and exaltation of Mars, both malefics.

The counter-examples I found all had very uncertain birth times. For example, Pope John Paul II had Mars in Libra. The problem is that he gives his birth time as “between 5 and 6 o’clock” so he could well have Libra rising with Mars in the 12th house or Virgo rising with Mars in Libra at the end of the first house. Neither of these conditions would qualify.

Another example is St. Therese de Lisieux, but her birthtime is only on the half-hour, so we cannot be certain of her Ascendant either.

If you or anyone else finds counter-examples with what looks like an exact birth time, feel free to add & discuss them here.

Best wishes,
Nina

I agree with the temperament comment by polymon.

I would think some counter-examples would do fine, also. People who have mars and venus in ASC in detriment but are famous by their restriction ?