I noticed that, beginning on Saturday, Saturn will be in the same degree as the moon's nodes for about three weeks. In Horary Astrology Rediscovered, Olivia Barclay calls the degree of the moon's nodes "the degree of fatality" and says that any planet in this degree--regardless of the sign--will be unfortunate in a horary or electional chart. The Nodes will be at 11 Aries/Libra and Saturn will be at 11 Leo.

What does this mean for any horary or electional charts cast during this time period--that whatever question is asked, or event planned, will have a bad ending?

I believe that Anthony Louis does not subscribe to this consideration, and has apparently cast charts in which nothing untoward happened, despite having planets in a nodal degree.

What is the history of this rule? Is it something passed down from Lilly, or is it a modern convention? I don't have any experience working with planets in a nodal degree, so I would appreciate insights.

Hi Ellie


Good question - I have the same quandary in a wedding date election chart, where Saturn sits on 23?Leo and the Nodes 25? Pisces. I would have completely missed this, had not another astrologer pointed this out to me.
While I'd love to avoid the disappointment and misfortune that this is supposed to bring, I must admit that I feel inclined to ignore this placement.

I was only too happy to dodge the Saturn/Chiron opposition and was so chuffed to get all the other ducks in a row, so when I heard about this scenario I was ready to run around screaming

Hopefully somebody will throw some more light on this.

Regards
Susie

Hi again

Just found something re this: http://celestteal.bizland.com/special_points.htm

"In the Degree of the Nodes refers to any planet or significant point that falls in the same degree of the nodes in any sign. It must be the very same degree, not one higher or lower to come within one degree but actually in that same degree, regardless of the number of minutes. This shows a fated appointment or fateful event, possibly some sort of catastrophe. This indicator has been used mainly in Horary Astrology and if such a condition exists, it means the situation is out of the hands of the Querent. According to Anthony Louis in Horary Astrology, Plain & Simple, it is the Moon?s Mean Node to judge by."

Right, that puts an end to my query, problem solved

Now I can go back to worrying over the moon applying to combustion and other little snags!

S.

Hi--

I'm glad that you resolved your issue with the electional chart.

However, right now, Saturn IS exactly in the degree of the nodes. It is at 11 Leo; the nodes are at 11 Aries-Libra. This condition will exist until around November 25th or so.

If it is true that nodal degree planets mean something fated, and out of the control of the querent, will figure into the outcome of a horary, then how specifically is nodal degree Saturn to be interpreted? As the hand of social authority putting its stamp on the question? As some type of fatal limitation or restriction? If the chart is otherwise positive, then how much weight is given to a nodal degree planet? Is a nodel degree planet counted as a consideration before judgement that may render the chart unreadable in certain circumstances? I'd really like to hear from people who have a lot of experience working charts that have nodal degree planets in them.

Thank you.

Ellie

Yes please, someone come to our aid with some practical examples, and also possibly, how reliable in effect this aspect is.

Also, I'd love to know how it would manifest in a natal chart - if at all, that is.

Thanks
S.

Hi Ellie, Susie

We had quite detailed discussion about the nodes last December: strangely enough called Difference between Saturn and North Node? . It might be worth you checking the views in that thread.

It wasn?t Olivia Barclay who called the node degree ?a degree of fatality?, it was Barbara Watters, though Olivia referred to this in her book where she expressed her disagreement with the allocation of 4 points of dignity for a planet in a partile conjunction with the north node. (Lilly's Table to Examine the Strength & Debility of Each Planet; CA p.115 ? a copy is here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#liltab)

It?s a fair point that Olivia raises because any planet conjunct the NN is obviously at the same time opposed by the South node, and vice versa.

In traditional western astrology the north node (ascending) is supposed fortunate and the South node (descending) unfortunate. But Lilly says of the north node: ?the ancients do say, that being in conjunction with the good he is good, and in conjunction with the evil planets they account him evil? whereas for the south node the ancients say ?he is evil when joined with good planets and good when in conjunction with the malignant planets? (CA p.83)

However Lilly dismisses this and says he finds no reason for it, and that in his experience he always found the NN equivalent to a fortunate planet and the South Node ?evil?, with its malignity magnified when placed with unfortunate planets.

I don?t believe that Lilly did anything other than consider conjunctions to the nodes or their effect upon house placement. I can?t recall seeing him use an aspect to the node but I haven?t thought to look for that before now. He did seem to refer to the south node more often than the north, with an emphasis upon it being a malefic.

Olivia Barclay calls the degree of the moon's nodes "the degree of fatality" and says that any planet in this degree--regardless of the sign--will be unfortunate in a horary or electional chart.

I don?t think Olivia meant to leave that impression. She says, after pointing out that a planet conjunct the north node is given a good dignity score:

yet I find that Mrs. Watters rule ? that any planet in the degree of the nodes in unfortunate works. She calls it ?A degree of fatality?.

But then she immediately goes on to say:

The house in which the North Node appears seems to be fortunate, and the South Node, as Lilly states ?prenotes detriment and impediment of such things as are signified by that house?.

There's no mention of sign placement (house placement is more relevant because nodes are in signs for such a long period). It's worth bearing in mind that she expected the readers of her book to be familiar with Lilly?s approach and that the chapters started off as lessons for her QHP course in which she advocated this. So her hesitancy and caution is more about moderating too much expectation of benefit from the north node and suggesting that the issue is rather confusing and not very well understood. I really don?t think she would have viewed all node contacts as unfortunate, and believe she was mainly interested in questioning the validity of the dignity scores.

Personally I prefer to think of the nodes as sensitive points rather than degrees of fatality. I think that phrase is completely meaningless. I don?t ascribe to the view that the 12th degree of any sign is currently ?the degree of the node? and therefore unfortunate. That takes away all need to consider that Saturn is in good aspectual contact to the nodes, and whatever meaning that might bring into individual charts. Otherwise you get this approach that means everyone who asks any horary question in a whole month is going to have an unfortunate planet in an unfortunate degree - what can that mean? "we are all doomed together"!

If the chart is otherwise positive, then how much weight is given to a nodal degree planet?

Very little erring towards none at all. There are much more important considerations that aren?t tainted with such confusion. If your main significators and the Moon is well placed, you have no reason to get alarmed about a ?nodal degree planet?.

Is a nodel degree planet counted as a consideration before judgement that may render the chart unreadable in certain circumstances?

Absolutely not. But if you get the South node conjunct Mars and Saturn rising on the ascendant with the Moon in square from the 4th house and the Sun opposing from the descendant conjunct Algol, you might want to draw breath before answering

Thanks Deb, for taking the time to clear this up for us - what a relief, we dodged another "gloom and doom" situation

Regards
Susie

Unfortunately every chart has a 'malefic' in it somewhere. Even if the malefics are all nicely tucked away and the benefics are radiating all over the place, apparently we must still despair: gluttony, idleness, surfeit, can't be bothered to make an effort, opportunities go to waste .....

I think if you get a half-decent chart: rejoice - its probably perfect

Thank you very much, Deb, for your answer. I found what you said to be very informative and helpful. I think you laid to rest some anxieties I had about trying to cast an electional chart with Saturn in its current position. I don't have Barbara Watters' book--just Olivia Barlcay's. Did Watters originate this concept of the "degree of fatality", or did she learn it from someone else?

Thanks--
Ellie

Watters wrote ?any planet falling in the exact degree of the nodes, regardless of what sign it is in, is a fateful testimony?. But she goes on to say ?If the rest of the chart permits, a favourably aspected benefic in the degree of the Nodes, may bring sudden fame or fortune in a fateful manner which cannot be foreseen? (p.96 ? Judgement of Events)

I imagine Watters was influenced by Ivy Goldstein Jacobson who was even more extreme:

?Any planet or angle in the same degree as the nodes points to a catastrophe, casualty, fatality or tragedy in a horary or natal chart, the more far-reaching when a malefic is involved. If the horary planet is 1 degree applying, the affliction is about due. If it is 1 degree separating, the trouble has already occurred.? (p.52 ? Simplified Horary Astrology)

Note both only seem to be referring to the degree of conjunction.

The trouble with books that simplify horary rules is that they tend to make things very black and white which causes exaggeration. As Watters? reference to a benefic influence shows, the nodes aren?t necessarily as catastrophic as Goldstein-Jacobson describes them. Their influence ranges between being fortunate or tragic, so there has to be an in-between! Plus, what we call ?malefics? are not always malefic, just as ?benefics? are not always benefic. But how can you incorporate all the factors in a book called ?Simplified Horary Astrology?? By making it simple and extreme, the principle becomes easily established and quickly propagated.

The idea that things happen ?in a fateful manner which cannot be foreseen? strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. The very purpose of horary is to explore factors which may be fated and not currently foreseen. I think the nodes are better perceived as turning points, and you should consider the sign, house, fixed stars, planetary contacts and relevant eclipse to establish what the ?turning? is about.