Vertex in synastry & solunars

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, how valid do you consider Vertex to be in synastry and in solunars? And what orb would you recommend, for each?

Not a black-and-white thing. Here are some thoughts.

First of all (and ignoring the research I'm presently doing on Vertex in mundane astrology), I think that only in the rarest case would I miss anything important if I never looked at the Vertex again. That doesn't mean it isn't important - it means that its relative importance is a little lower than the things we normally look at.

In Solunars... I used it actively in the book Interpreting Solar Returns, and it seems to have enough value to keep an eye on it. - I can tell you a little better at the end of this year, since I have an unambiguously positive SSR unless the Saturn-Neptune square on the Vertex counts. After the work I've done in the last six months or so, I now question whether Vertex taken ecliptically matters at all - it certainly doesn't in mundane astrology, and the mundane angularity is often quite different from the ecliptical. If it turns out that there is no ecliptical validity, then this throws into question all the evidence on which I ever based any opinion of the Vertex, and I'd have to nearly start over again.

While it is probably worth watching in the SSR (at least keeping an eye on it), I have no confidence in it for the SLR at all, This, too, could be a "mundane instead of ecliptical" thing, and may need to be revisited; but, to give a simple answer, watching ecliptical contacts to the Vertex in an SLR is worthless.


In Synastry, we get into interesting turf. Because so many astrologers think of the Vertex (which is drawn on the western half of the chart) as more Descendant-like than anything else, they often give it especial importance in Synastry. It makes theoretical sense that these contacts would work best ecliptically, because transits to angles work best ecliptically, and Synastry is a lot like transits ("some other chart to my chart").

So... let's just take a look here. I have a file of horoscopes of women who have been significant in my life. Because my Vertex is 3° from my Moon, it's not a good test to take their planets to my Vertex, but let me do a quick tabulation of my planets to their Vertex.

Here's the damning bottom line: In almost 70% of these charts, my planets make NO contact to the woman's Vertex (counting 3° for conjunction or opposition, 2° for square). This NO CONTACT includes every one of the most important women in my history, with one exception. Then, of the charts which do have a Vertex contacting my planets, there is only a single Venus contact, a single Moon contact, and two Sun contacts - very little.

Strangely, most of the contacts (65%) are to my Mars-Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune T-square. There is a strange pile-up of them at 0° Rim and 3° Rim. That pile-up almost makes one think that there is something going on... except I don't see how it could outweigh the two facts that (1) about 70% of the cases, including most of the most important cases, had no contact at all, and (2) among the contacts there were almost none to Sun, Moon, or Venus.

So... I'd have to say I place no confidence in it for Synastry at all.

[SteveS]

FWIW,
Robert Hand writes from his book, ‘Horoscope Symbols’ (1981) about the Vertex:

Theoretically, the points where the prime vertical circle crosses the ecliptic ought also to have meaning. So postulated L. Edward Johndro, a technically proficient astrologer from New York, some decades ago. His work led him to conclude that the intersection in the west is the most important, and he named that point Vertex (and the opposite point in the east the Antivertex). He and his students have found that the Vertex has to do with fateful and important encounters, either with people or circumstances. I mentioned the Vertex in ‘Planets in Composite.’ Since then I have examined it further and still do not have a clear ideal of its usefulness. What does emerge is that it is most active in situations that are dramatic and not characteristic of one’s ordinary life. This would seem to accord with Johndro’s ideals, but I do not find it useful in most cases. Other astrologers have different experiences; clearly more work is needed.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary. ... +L.+Edward

[Arena]

We may have to first agree on how to measure the Vx before we can be sure if we should use it.
I´ve found the Vx point to be of immense importance in the natal chart. I don't have enough data on the returns. I´ve also noted that the Vx point may be even more important in charts in the polar regions where the ASC is not really to the east of the MC.

[SteveS]

After my wife's recent NQ2 last weekend involving a pile-up of benefic planets on her NQ2 Vertex for a couple of days involving Auburn Basketball, I am convinced of some words by Robert Hand about the Vertex:

I still do not have a clear idea of its usefulness. What does emerge from my research is that it is most active with people or circumstances in situations that are dramatic and not characteristic of one's ordinary life.

With Auburn winning its two games last weekend to make it to the final 4 teams for the championship was indeed 'dramatic' and 'not characteristic' of her 'ordinary life' as an avid Auburn fan.