From Astrologia Gallica Book 21 by Morin:

Pages 58 till 60, and page 63

In general, a benefic planet in good celestial state located in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth or eleventh house...grants the good things of that house, and the results will be real, abundant, lasting, and unattended by difficulties.

However, a benefic in a fortunate house in a state which is adverse by sign or through aspect either grants nothing, or grants things attended by difficulties or through evil means, or which are at best scanty, spurious, unreliable, or of little use.

A benefic in a good celestial state in the unfortunate houses..prevents or mitigates the evil of these houses, and this is also true for the seventh which through the meaning of litigations and open enemies attributed to it is sometimes evil.
So, Jupiter in the 12th ...makes the native subject to few diseases and even those will be easy to cure; and this planet will free the native from prison...

But a benefic in adverse celestial state, in the 12th or 8th house or ruler of one of these houses, will not prevent disease and may even cause serious ones, nor will it prevent a violent death, especially if this is shown in some other way.

And so, a benefic in good celestial state and in a fortunate house will grant the good things of that house with ease and in abundance; in an unfortunate house it will free the native from the things signified by that house, or will ultimately grant the good which is hoped will issue from the situation, such as a recovery from illness, release from prison, victory over one's enemies.

Paul,

You wrote about malefics turning benefic. To me that's not the same as a benefic turning malefic ? let's call it a benefic becoming perverted. A malefic becoming benefic does seem to be a very possible result of the weakening of maleficence. It's a removal of the malefic quality. If that contributes to a smoother and more cooperative flow for manifestation then ultimately it can indeed be called benefic. But for a benefic to become malefic seems much stronger, it's not not simply the elimination of benefic qualities. It's more of an active corruption causing harm and hindrance.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It's odd. The whole point of my resuscitating this thread was to express the view that Jupiter can be malefic and destructive, but I'm lost in not being able to determine what it takes for that to happen. I can in no way see Jupiter in 6, 8, or 12 being enough to make it malefic. As has been mentioned, it takes more harmful factors to make that happen. I just don't know how many factors, and which ones, it takes to cross over from a weak and ineffective Jupiter to an actually malefic Jupiter. I guess I have a lot more to learn. The terms malefic and benefic seem to be traps that too easily catch a person in 'box' thinking. It's not that I find them too morally judgmental. Rather, they too easily become limiting labels that are hard get away from or switch when chart factors call for it. It's in the art of it all, I suppose. And I may be hung up on something as basic as the difference between 'good' and 'bad'. Oh dear.

Another thing: When it comes to the influence of a negative aspect from a malefic wouldn't astrology traditionally rule out Mars regarding Jupiter? The more superior planet was always said to affect the less superior. Mars is 'beneath' Jupiter and thus has little power over it. Saturn is the one to squelch or pervert Jupiter. Venus is the benefic that can be negatively influenced by Mars.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yukionna,

Thank you for the Morin quote. I have the book. It just sits there. I probably should give it some exercise. To be honest, I've been having some pretty strong anti-astrology feelings for some time now. Morin is a good example of the sort of characters in the astrological world that I've had enough of.

Hi Kurt,

To be honest, I've been having some pretty strong anti-astrology feelings for some time now. Morin is a good example of the sort of characters in the astrological world that I've had enough of.

Well, I think I can understand that, like I said, he's pretty outspoken und very convinced of what he says. I quite like him for that, but don't know how I'll feel about it after 10 years or so.
I would be interested though what it is that irritates you, could you elaborate a little?

Yuki

Yukionna wrote:Hi Kurt,

To be honest, I've been having some pretty strong anti-astrology feelings for some time now. Morin is a good example of the sort of characters in the astrological world that I've had enough of.

Well, I think I can understand that, like I said, he's pretty outspoken und very convinced of what he says. I quite like him for that, but don't know how I'll feel about it after 10 years or so.
I would be interested though what it is that irritates you, could you elaborate a little?

Yuki

I was just venting. I shouldn't do that.

I should also be more accurate: I've been feeling more anti-astrologers than anti-astrology. And what really, really gets me going are the current-day astrologers and astrology students who dabble in simplistic 'psychology' as, ultimately, their primary concern, with astrology serving as just a tool to pick apart and explain themselves and everyone else. (I get in a huff over these things from time to time. )

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with Morin.

I've been looking for a chart that might serve as example for a Jupiter gone malefic, and here's one that could illustrate that:
Walter Winchell
07.04.1897
19:30 New York
It's Rodden Rating A.

I searched for Saturn-Jupiter tension, as Kirk's remark on Jupiter not being able to be affected by Mars due to this superiority theme, got me thinking that he might be right about that.

So here's a Jupiter that couldn't be in worse state:
in detriment, retrograde, slow, out of sect, occidental and in square with Saturn. In fact, it's so weak, it doesn't really need the square with Saturn to become malefic. (I'm actually not just a little smug about finding such a bad-ass Jupiter)
It's accidentally strong in 10, so it can act.

Jupiter rules the 5th house of children. He had 2 biological and one adopted child. The latter died of pneumonia at the age of nine, his daughter spent a lot of time in psychiatric hospitals and his son committed suicide.

On the other hand, Jupiter is ruler of 10 by position, and Winchell was quite successful and famous, although more feared than loved, and his success came at the expense of other people, whose secrets he exposed, making their lives difficult. His success might also be explained by the exalted Sun in 6. It's ruler of the house in the house and can therefore realize the affairs of that house.
He ended his career after his son's death.

I think in this chart Mars shouldn't be disregarded, Jupiter alone might not be so malefic toward children (5th ruler).
Mars ruler of watery triplicity (5th house) in nocturnal chart, detriment in fall in Cancer, ruling AC, but not peregrine (own triplicity), so can act.

Yuki,

Thank you for the Winchell chart. It's an interesting one. Jupiter as ruler of the 5th does seem malefic toward children, OR ? is it just an extremely weak Jupiter which is easily pushed over the edge by that partile square to Saturn? In other words, it's maybe not that Jupiter itself is malefic but that it's dominated by the out of sect malefic that has the power to control it. There's also the square to Uranus, but I can't get excited about that one. It's out of sign and Jupiter will SD before moving into Leo with Uranus and perfecting the aspect.

It looks like it's the out of sect Saturn reflecting the problem. But what about the fact that Jupiter disposits Saturn? Might that mean that instead of the usual assistance Jupiter would be expected to give to Saturn this very weakened Jupiter is only able to give, to hand over, the children themselves to superior Saturn, the planet traditionally associated with death? Would that make Jupiter actually malefic or be merely an indication of its tragic powerlessness?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Not the greatest image ever, but I at least managed to do it. I'm progressing right along into the technological age.

Yuriy, I agree, Mars is in very bad state and feral if I'm not mistaken, so not modified by any other planet. In 9 it doesn't have so much power to act, but it's still strong enough to cause trouble.

Kirk, tnx for posting the chart, i didn't know how to do this and felt a bit bad about just giving the data...

Your post raised some questions:

you say Saturn is out of sect. I know there are 2 concepts of sect, one being that Saturn as a day planet should be situated on the same side as the Sun. In this case it is, so it is in sect, even in Hayz, cause it's in a masculine sign as well. So that mitigates its malefic nature somewhat as far as I understand.
The other concept, which Paul pointed out in a discussion somewhere, is the one, where the ruling light determines which planets are in sect. Here, as it is a night chart, Moon is ruling light, so all the feminine planets become somewhat stronger. Saturn as a day planet is not among those, so can be called out of sect.

Is it the latter you're refering to?

I use the first one, so it even got me thinking that Saturn is not all bad. It's still a malefic, but it is in it's triplicity (and decan), and it's oriental. Still, it's strong to act and should cause strive and limitations. And then there's the aspect with its dispositor Jupiter. Which raises the second question.
Jupiter applies to Saturn. I don't really know who is influencing whom negatively. To me it seems like two malefics working on the same agenda. I don't think Jupiter hands responsibilty to Saturn, because it should be in Saturn's dignity or its own dignity to be able to do this. Isn't that this thing about pushing nature (planet a is in the dignity of planet b and applies to planet b) and pushing power (planet a is in its own dignity and applies to planet b)?

It's interesting to see that the part of children is on 2 Leo (AC + Jupiter - Saturn). Saturn aspects it closely, Jupiter doesn't. Which would underline your argument of Saturn being the malefic force here.

The last point is about your remark on Jupiter being powerless. Power to me is a planet's ability to act, and it certainly can do that. Its essential weakness just renders it 'powerless' to express its inherent good nature, which is probably what you mean. It's the 'actively' being malefic that you don't see in Jupiter. I tend to disagree. Morin's quote about an essentially weak benefic in a good house realizing the affairs of that house but by corrupted means does seem to apply here. He was a bad cooky professionally, highly successful yes, but not someone whose attention you wanted to have.

Yuki

According to some sources, a planet is in Hayz when it accomplishes the following circumstances:
- the chart has the planet's sect: Sun, Saturn and Jupiter in day charts; Moon, Venus and Mars in night charts; Mercury changes its sect according to various occurrences;
- the planet is in the Sign according to its sect: all masculine (Air and Fire) are diurnal, all feminine (Water and Earth) are nocturnal;
- it is mandatory to be above the horizon.

Winchell's chart, following these guidelines, has two planets in Hayz: Mars and Venus.
Jupiter is in a condition opposite to the Hayz: he is out of sect and in the Sign of opposite sect; this is called extra-conditionem or contra-Hayz (for it being above the horizon, while extra-conditionem happens regardless of the position to the horizon). Being in e.c. above the horizon is actually worse than being e.c. below the horizon. So Jupiter can act as a real malefic.

As you can see, Jupiter is angular (thus powerful), while Saturn is succedant (less powerful) and dependent on Jupiter. Therefore, Jupiter is superior to Saturn.

The Part of Children is in 1 Aquarius (Asc + Saturn - Jupiter), so we can see a direct relationship of children's condition to this Jupiter-Saturn aspect. In Leo, it would be ruled by Sun, which is in a strange relationship with Jupiter (no aspect) and Saturn (out of orb, but in Sign aspect), therefore Winchell's children should be in a better condition than the Part would be in Aquarius...

I read in his biography that two of his children died. The death of children is 8th Sign after PoC in Aquarius, hence Virgo, right where is Jupiter squaring and disposing ruler of PoC.
If we would take PoC in Leo, the 8th would be Pisces, and with Jupiter in detriment and without relationship with Sun (ruler of PoC), his children wouldn't have died... not in his lifetime, anyway.

I hope I make sense. If there is a direct relationship between significators, it should happen. If not, don't bother looking for nebulous or obscure techniques (like sextile to antiscion or something like that).

Yuki wrote:

you say Saturn is out of sect. I know there are 2 concepts of sect, one being that Saturn as a day planet should be situated on the same side as the Sun. In this case it is, so it is in sect, even in Hayz, cause it's in a masculine sign as well. So that mitigates its malefic nature somewhat as far as I understand.
The other concept, which Paul pointed out in a discussion somewhere, is the one, where the ruling light determines which planets are in sect. Here, as it is a night chart, Moon is ruling light, so all the feminine planets become somewhat stronger. Saturn as a day planet is not among those, so can be called out of sect.

Is it the latter you're refering to?

The latter is the most important one, and the one I was referring to. My understanding is that it's also the original condition of sect, with hemispheric placement in relation to the Sun and sect by sign coming later in astrology's development. First comes the basic 'Diurnal or nocturnal chart?'. You hear pretty often these days that the out of sect malefic is the one at highest risk of causing problems for the chart native. It seems to be one of those more recent rediscoveries in traditional astrology. Thus Mars in diurnal charts is the 'high-risk' malefic, with Saturn being the one for nocturnal charts. Likewise, for benefics Jupiter has the more help and moderation to offer diurnal charts, and Venus for nocturnal charts. Winchell's is a nocturnal chart, so immediately we should see what Saturn is up to.

The last point is about your remark on Jupiter being powerless. Power to me is a planet's ability to act, and it certainly can do that. Its essential weakness just renders it 'powerless' to express its inherent good nature, which is probably what you mean. It's the 'actively' being malefic that you don't see in Jupiter. I tend to disagree. Morin's quote about an essentially weak benefic in a good house realizing the affairs of that house but by corrupted means does seem to apply here.

Well, I have to admit I've never been on firm ground with this 'quantity and quality' thing. When do factors determine how much strength and planet has and when do they determine the kind of strength it has ? for good or ill? Maybe I need to read Morin. But in this chart Jupiter is in detriment, peregrine, out of sect in all 3 ways: by chart (it's a nocturnal chart); by placement (in the other hemisphere in relation to the Sun); and by sign. It's occidental of the Sun, whereas the superior planets are strongest when oriental. It's retrograde and moving slowly, with nearly 3 full weeks left before SD. And there's that partile square to out of sect (by chart) malefic, Saturn. The only good the going for Jupiter that I can see is its 11th house placement. Maybe that's enough to say it can act, but to me this is a scared, unsure, confused, befuddled Jupiter. A high anxiety Jupiter. I really can't see it having much confidence to act. To me this Jupiter just sort of stands there and pees his pants. Such a Jupiter is going to do as Saturn says. But there could be things I'm missing.

He was a bad cooky professionally, highly successful yes, but not someone whose attention you wanted to have.

Which I attribute to Mars ? the ASC ruler. Cardinal Mars in Cancer got him out there in the world. I don't see Mars as being in such a bad state, but as being a divisive dude with a fair amount of power. Dignity by triplicity prevents being peregrine ? and thus gives more focus. It's in sect by chart, placement and sign. It's the in-sect malefic, so there's a good chance of it working for the native rather than against him ? or, with all factors considered, at least both. I don't see the cadent 9th house as particularly weak. Could the house that is the joy of the Sun really be all that weak? Perhaps it is regarding 10th house matters ? the angle from which it derives its cadent condition. But the 9th trines the ASC, as does Mars by sign and degree. Cardinal Cancer can be a pretty nasty sign that likes to kick up some dust. This Mars, as ASC ruler in the house of publishing and broadcasting, fits the man very well.

From Tzadde,

I read in his biography that two of his children died. The death of children is 8th Sign after PoC in Aquarius, hence Virgo, right where is Jupiter squaring and disposing ruler of PoC.
If we would take PoC in Leo, the 8th would be Pisces, and with Jupiter in detriment and without relationship with Sun (ruler of PoC), his children wouldn't have died... not in his lifetime, anyway.

I hope I make sense. If there is a direct relationship between significators, it should happen. If not, don't bother looking for nebulous or obscure techniques (like sextile to antiscion or something like that).

Saturn, the out of sect malefic, is in a partile square to Jupiter, the lord of the house of children. Isn't that plenty? I haven't plunged into the lots yet, even though I often read that I should. They seem too contrived to me. What you've presented seems, well, horribly obscure.

Kirk wrote:Saturn, the out of sect malefic, is in a partile square to Jupiter, the lord of the house of children. Isn't that plenty?

It is just one testimony. Many astrologers said there should be at least three testimonies for a situation to happen. I feel good with only two, though.

Kirk wrote:I haven't plunged into the lots yet, even though I often read that I should. They seem too contrived to me. What you've presented seems, well, horribly obscure.

You should plunge into the lots. They are very useful. Extraordinarily useful. Just like "vargas" or "yogas" in Vedic astrology.

So the Arab astrologers (from the early Medieval Age) would strongly disagree with you. They used the lots as often as the planets and the Houses.
Hermes Trismegistus (according to the legend) brought the Astrology from the skies to the people living on Earth, so they could understand the stars. Among his lessons were the seven Hermetic lots, based on the relationship of the Soli-Lunar Parts (of Fortune and of Spirit) with the planets (the Fortunes are mixed with Part of Spirit, the Infortunes with Part of Fortune)... The Arabs knew about these Parts and they wanted to develop this field, but they over-did them. If you pick the relevant lots and use them rationally, there should be no problem using them.

So no, these lots weren't contrived by a bit. There is a reason behind them: the planets, sometimes, have too many significations, so you have to pick them apart by using something that uses the same signification of both planets: for example, the part of marriage is used by mixing Asc (the native), Venus (love, marriage) and Saturn (longtime / longterm commitments). Got it?

Kirk, I have given an example of what is obscure to me. You can't compare the example with my previous post.