Hello,

I have a question concerning planets in station. When is it that a planet is considered station? Is it when it is at the degree where it makes its reversal regardless of the time it takes or is it restricted to time, e.g. within 2 days of its reversal or is it a combination of both or what?

Thank you in advnced!

I am not sure of any rule on this. Looking at the ephemeris for July 2010 Jupiter was at 3D 24.1 Aries for two days on the 23rd & 24th so one could simply choose those two days.

How about saying when a planet is fast or average in speed? It is another phase related question and probably just needs judgement by the astrologer rather than any rule of thumb.

Anyone else?

Matt

Until the planet changes degree.

Using matt23z's example, I would consider Jupiter stationary from the day of it's retrogradation, on July 23rd (2010) which was at 3?Aries 24 untill the last day before it changes degree which would be August 8 (2010).

Another example would be Mercury stationary from the day of it's retrogradation, on Aug 20 (2010) which was at 19?Virgo 01 untill the last day before it changes degree which would be August 21 (2010).

Of course, this being the Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques forum, this does not include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

In his Christian Astrology, (1647) Lilly gives the number of days that each planet is typically stationary - eg, he says that jupiter "is five days in his first station before retrogradation, and four days stationary before direction" (p.62). The details differ for each planet.

But I think its as well to use common sense.

I heard there's some common sense for sale on Ebay.

Boxed, as new, hardly used.

Being sold as it was an unwanted gift.

Hello,

Solar Fire 6 gives an option to display whether a planet is stationary using the letter S on the natal chart. It gives four different options of determining whether a planet is considered stationary. From Solar Fire 6 help file:

A planet or point is stationary only instantaneously ie. not for any finite length of time. Hence, in normal usage, a point referred to as being stationary in a chart actually means that it is near a station, rather than truly being stationary.

There are a number of possible ways of defining the criteria for how near a point must be to a station in order to be considered "stationary", and Solar Fire offers four such options, from which the user may select one.

? Within this timespan of exactness - the user may specify the number of days and/or hours, within which the point is considered stationary

? Within this distance of exactness - the user may specify the orb as a distance in longitude (celestial), within which the point is considered stationary

? When actual speed is less than - the user may specify a daily rate of motion (in zodiacal longitude per day), below which the point is considered stationary

? When speed relative to average is less than - the user may specify a percentage of the typical speed, below which the point is considered stationary

All seems logical and are of course within the bounds of common sense. Personally, I do not like option 1 which is absolute time based because different planets have different average, maximum and minimum speeds. I also do not favour option 2 (absolute distance based) because different planets have different orbs of effectiveness when aspecting other planets - giving absolute distance do not seem to take into consideration the different planets. By now you would have guessed that I do not prefer "absolutism" in this particular area of astrology. Option 3 seems good enough for me but it also has absolutism in it because we will simply put one value of speed where all planets would be considered stationary when traveling at a speed below this value. Of course when planets are truly stationary, the speed is zero (at least for an infinitesimal amount time!). Giving an absolute value close to zero for all planets seem logical but I think option 4 is better because by specifying percentage, we differentiate each planet's relative motion. In fact, we could also do this to Moon (who is never retrograde) as traditional astrologers consider moon to be like retrograde when moving at a speed less than a certain percentage of her average speed i.e. when she is slow.

Still, all the options seem acceptable. The different options would definitely give different number of incidences of stationary planets in charts.

Speaking for Mercury stations I have noticed the following phenomenon.

With Mercury assigned to the winds, virtually every time Mercury stations direct or retrograde there is a noticeable and observable increase in wind. Sometimes this is just a breeze, other times a real windstorm.

I have found that once the wind dies down that Mercury's station is complete. So if I am reading an ephemeris which states Mercury goes retrograde 3 days from now, but today is a windy day followed by calm, Mercury has effectively made its station 3 days before the ephemeris time. I have witnessed this from 3 days before or 3 days after the official ephemeris time for stations.

If a planet stations and then retrogrades within a week after the birth chart then consider that in the progressed chart, which is how the life unfolds, that planet retrogrades at a very early and formative age and for Mars, Jup, Sat and the outer planets will remain Rx for the entire life. The number of days prior to reaching station will determine the age at which that planet goes Rx for the person.

But even with that, few writers that I know about speak on the significance of a stationary planet.
Everything in the chart is moving. The houses are rising in the East. The lights and planets are moving forward or backwards in the signs but then you have one planet that is not moving, in counterpoint to the entire rest of the chart. It should be significant yet nobody (that I know) speaks much about it.