I'm only a student, so please take it with a grain of salt - but my impression is that it's a good thing to have Saturn (especially an ill-dignified Saturn) in the 12th house for two reasons. Saturn, the greater malefic, 'likes' being there because in the 12th house he has the opportunity to do things that suit his rather harmful nature as well as the meaning of the house -- restricting, limiting, thwarting, subjecting the native to various losses or hardships. However, the 12th house is also a cadent house, and therefore relatively weak -- so Saturn placed there loses much of its power to harm, in practice.

I'd be curious to know whether Morin made specific mention of Saturn in the 12th (or Mars in the 6th). If I understand correctly, his theory of local determination should mean that those are perhaps the most harmful places to have the malefics, since the nature of the planets is closely aligned with the malefic nature of those houses and thus will be more clearly expressed. Is that right?

hey all

i have Saturn in Leo in 12th
i have to say it is a blessing. I have Uranus square Saturn on top of that.
TO me it seems like breaking from the past and my Uranus is very active.
Also Saturn
Saturn return was a melted butter on a toasted warm bread
nothing happened. The only time when i felt Saturn's wrath was when Saturn squared my Sun and my Moon at the same time. I was working in the place whee I saw no future but i had no getaway to another job. Shortly after Saturn passed the square, i changed a job.

i have no complaints regarding Saturn being in 12th.
some say it is hidden depression. I have no time to be depressed. There is always something to do.

I also got 2 MRs

Moon/Mars .. Moon in Scorpio / Mars in Cancer
Venus/Mercury ...Venus in Virgo (unaspected) and Mercury in Libra *critical degree*
I have to say it is fun

CD

Tom said about mutual reception by sign:

... Essential dignity is based on the planet's position in a sign and nothing else. The essence is what it is and can't be changed. Traditional astrologers do not take this idea too seriously.

I don't believe that the planets switch places, but assigning essential dignity to a mutual reception can be seen in Lilly's table of essential and accidental strength in Christian Astrology. He lists mutual reception as a form of essential dignity:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#1

Essential dignity +5

In own sign or in mutual reception with another planet by sign

This is not listed under an accidental dignity, but an essential dignity.

This is not listed under an accidental dignity, but an essential dignity.

It might be listed as an essential dignity, but it doesn't make sense. If Mars is in Gemini it has little or no essential dignity (I don't have a table handy). But in those charts where Mars is in Gemini and Mercury "happens" to be in Aries, Mars is now essentially dignified? Sounds like an accident to me.

Furthermore, what of those points given to planets when measuring their essential dignity? In the case above, Mars now gets 5 points because Mercury is in a Mars sign? Put another way, is Mars in Gemini as strong as Mars in Aries when Mercury is in Aries? Essential dignity tells us how well a planet can "behave" as itself. Mars does Mars stuff best in Aries and Scorpio. To grant Mars this same kind of power when it is not in a sign of its own because another planet happens to be in a Mars sign is an accident.

Tom[/code]

Tom wrote:

It might be listed as an essential dignity, but it doesn't make sense. If Mars is in Gemini it has little or no essential dignity (I don't have a table handy). But in those charts where Mars is in Gemini and Mercury "happens" to be in Aries, Mars is now essentially dignified? Sounds like an accident to me.

Good point, this really sounds like an accident.

The only ways in which one/both of the planets involved may profit from reception is when the receiving one is essentially highly dignified, which is basically the same thing as having an essentially strong dispositor; or else, when they receive each other from the place where they already are essentially dignified - for example, Jupiter and Venus in Pisces, or Moon and Venus in Taurus.

Goran

Hello Skyscript forum,

I was reading in this thread a bit earlier someone mentioned 3 way reception. But the examples used involved triplicity and two planets being reveived by the first one.

I want to present a different possibility. Take the following positions:

Leo Mars
Libra Sun
Scorpio Venus

Now Sun receives Mars, Mars receives Venus, Venus receives Sun, which receives Mars.

Mars, Sun and Venus are in their fall, peregrine or detriment, yet the three together rule Leo, Libra and Scorpio.

Who is to say that these three planets, should not cooperate together, especially for example if they have an aspect pattern going. Put Venus and Mars at 20 degrees, and Sun at 5, forming a square and midpoint semi-square.

Who will argue that these planets do not form mutual reception. Normally you use two, but why shouldn't three co-operate?

What would be the difference between a planet which disposits most of the chart via chain of disposition and a planet which is in domicile and only disposits itself?