i like yairs question and saw it the other day on a facebook astrology group page as well... i have enjoyed reading the different comments by other posters.

my own way of answering this question is more of a 'wet' as opposed to 'dry' manner... these are terms lee lehman uses in some of her books - the most recent one 'classical solar returns' being the one i am reading now. like yin and yang, or day and night - wet and dry - words sometimes used to describe temperament - are both necessary..

when i look at a chart, i will often try to find the area of the chart that has the most potential for conflict and difficulty.. although it might be directly related to the planets defined as malefic, i don't necessarily think of it this way.. i also include the other outer planets as essentially malefic in nature if for no other reason that we are 'less aware' of the energy connected with them.. but to the specific question of yairs here are my thoughts.

astrology is an art that is a combination of many ways of processing the info.. if a malefic is in a sign it isn't well suited to, it isn't going to function as well as if it is in a sign that it has an obvious affinity for.. just on the basis of sign position - a malefic in it's own sign is a big positive and one in a sign of it's fall or opposite is a net negative.. one also has to consider the house position.. planets on angles have the ability to act for good or bad.. take that info with the sign position and combine it... a planet can be in good celestial state( sign position) but weak terrestrial position (house placement). these are terms morin uses. a planet in good celestial state and weak terrestrially means the good that could come from the malefic is not allowed to come forth as easily... you can do the reverse to get an idea of how a malefic in poor celestial state, but on an angle is essentially quite negative..

now an astrologer has to also factor in aspect relationships with other planet as any engagement with a malefic by hard aspect to an inner personal planet is going to cause difficulty, no matter if the malefic is in strong or weak celestial and terrestrial state.. the difficulty will be experienced more directly in connection with the inner planets that are being touched.. obviously certain planets work more favourably with each other - mercury and saturn for example.. all of this has to be considered..malefics in favourable aspect to others via the trine and sextile are more of a blessing as i see it, although i am simplifying it.

astrology is complicated - it goes without saying! a simple answer is not impossible, but might imply the need to ignore other details to get a simple answer.. it is also trite to say each chart needs to be examined individually.

so in closing i am going to answer the question in a simple way that i think holds true based on my own observations..

a weak malefic is not good as in the case of saturn it implies a lack of wisdom, responsibility and discipline necessary to move forward in life effectively.. it will be made worse if it is in an angular house and in hard aspect to other planets, regardless of what house it rules. essentially the ability of saturn to work effectively is more problematic given it's weak position whether by sign or house..

a weak mars is also a problem as it means not being able to effectively assert oneself, or suffering from the abuse and bullying of others and responding inappropriately as opposed to decisively.. put mars in cancer in an angular house and it brings it out in the open more.. fair better would be a mars in capricorn in an angular house, then mars in cancer, although mars does have an affinity with the water element and in a night chart would not be as problematical as i see it. mars in libra is more of a problem as i see it. it would depend on other factors.. put the mars in cancer in a cadent house and it implies an inability to act decisively or with strength and conviction as well, but it is not on an angle to come out easily.. i think it might be better in some regards, but the person is a weaker character in some way as i see it.

start factoring in aspect relationships, not to mention the outer planets ability to function as malefics and it gets more complicated..

"Weak malefics - even more malefic?" - simple answer from james - yes for the rationale outlined above..

James wrote:

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
i like yairs question and saw it the other day on a facebook astrology group page as well... i have enjoyed reading the different comments by other posters.

my own way of answering this question is more of a 'wet' as opposed to 'dry' manner... these are terms lee lehman uses in some of her books - the most recent one 'classical solar returns' being the one i am reading now. like yin and yang, or day and night - wet and dry - words sometimes used to describe temperament - are both necessary..

when i look at a chart, i will often try to find the area of the chart that has the most potential for conflict and difficulty.. although it might be directly related to the planets defined as malefic, i don't necessarily think of it this way.. i also include the other outer planets as essentially malefic in nature if for no other reason that we are 'less aware' of the energy connected with them.. but to the specific question of yairs here are my thoughts.

astrology is an art that is a combination of many ways of processing the info.. if a malefic is in a sign it isn't well suited to, it isn't going to function as well as if it is in a sign that it has an obvious affinity for.. just on the basis of sign position - a malefic in it's own sign is a big positive and one in a sign of it's fall or opposite is a net negative.. one also has to consider the house position.. planets on angles have the ability to act for good or bad.. take that info with the sign position and combine it... a planet can be in good celestial state( sign position) but weak terrestrial position (house placement). these are terms morin uses. a planet in good celestial state and weak terrestrially means the good that could come from the malefic is not allowed to come forth as easily... you can do the reverse to get an idea of how a malefic in poor celestial state, but on an angle is essentially quite negative..

now an astrologer has to also factor in aspect relationships with other planet as any engagement with a malefic by hard aspect to an inner personal planet is going to cause difficulty, no matter if the malefic is in strong or weak celestial and terrestrial state.. the difficulty will be experienced more directly in connection with the inner planets that are being touched.. obviously certain planets work more favourably with each other - mercury and saturn for example.. all of this has to be considered..malefics in favourable aspect to others via the trine and sextile are more of a blessing as i see it, although i am simplifying it.

astrology is complicated - it goes without saying! a simple answer is not impossible, but might imply the need to ignore other details to get a simple answer.. it is also trite to say each chart needs to be examined individually.

so in closing i am going to answer the question in a simple way that i think holds true based on my own observations..

a weak malefic is not good as in the case of saturn it implies a lack of wisdom, responsibility and discipline necessary to move forward in life effectively.. it will be made worse if it is in an angular house and in hard aspect to other planets, regardless of what house it rules. essentially the ability of saturn to work effectively is more problematic given it's weak position whether by sign or house..

a weak mars is also a problem as it means not being able to effectively assert oneself, or suffering from the abuse and bullying of others and responding inappropriately as opposed to decisively..

I feel these are very important considerations. When Saturn is weak, we may have trouble doing things systematically and in an ordered way; when Mars is weak, our ability to defend ourselves may be compromised... This is also showing where the traditional differentiation between malefics and benefics breaks down, to a degree. We need all these forces or functions; they are all good for us as long as they are balanced.

I wonder if any of you traditionalists can help me here. I keep running into cases of "debilitated" malefics that don't seem to manifest themselves as one would expect according to the classical rules.

Please take a look at the chart of Nikola Tesla.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

This man was one of the greatest inventors in history and also known for his excellent mathematical abilities. How are we to reconcile this with Saturn in a nocturnal chart being in his detriment Cancer, under the Sun's beams, in a cadent house, and throwing some tough aspects? What particularly baffles me is Mercury's applying conjunction (okay, he is dignified by being in his domicile but that's about it).

Likewise for Albert Einstein, without a doubt another brilliant thinker.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=75

Saturn in his fall in Aries, under the Sun's beams, in a cadent house (even though this depends on the house system used) and, hey, Mercury in exact applying conjunction.

Thoughts, anybody?

Michael

Just briefly, my thoughts on Einstein's chart, I don't know how others would view this.

Saturn in his fall in Aries, under the Sun's beams, in a cadent house (even though this depends on the house system used) and, hey, Mercury in exact applying conjunction.

Saturn is in Aries, but in sect, and heliacally setting into the Sun's beams, whereby it loses some of its accidental fortitude - it is obscured in the sky. At the same time Mercury is heliacally rising from the sun, in a 'phasis' condition and so making a pronouncement or exclamation in the sky, drawing our emphasis and attention. It emerges like a newborn with a sense of vitality.

As for Saturn, already noting it heliacally setting, it's also worth pointing out that not only is it in sect but also forming a mutual reception with Mars, its dispositor.

Perhaps there's something important to Saturn being obscured by the Sun, removing that sense of boundary whilst Mercury emerges purified and renewed from the Sun.

Obviously we should not begin and end our judgement of a chart with essential dignity alone. It's just one of several things we can take into consideration when forming our judgement.

Michael Sternbach wrote:I wonder if any of you traditionalists can help me here. I keep running into cases of "debilitated" malefics that don't seem to manifest themselves as one would expect according to the classical rules.

Please take a look at the chart of Nikola Tesla.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

This man was one of the greatest inventors in history and also known for his excellent mathematical abilities. How are we to reconcile this with Saturn in a nocturnal chart being in his detriment Cancer, under the Sun's beams, in a cadent house, and throwing some tough aspects? What particularly baffles me is Mercury's applying conjunction (okay, he is dignified by being in his domicile but that's about it).

Likewise for Albert Einstein, without a doubt another brilliant thinker.
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=75

Saturn in his fall in Aries, under the Sun's beams, in a cadent house (even though this depends on the house system used) and, hey, Mercury in exact applying conjunction.

Thoughts, anybody?

It will be wrong to think that their life was smooth ,rosy and all up and above.

Einstein had a dull job problem, a Hitler problem and leaving Germany problem.

The brilliance of Tesla was clouded by by the Direct current multi-patent Edison.

They rose in spite of the debility and the dispositor of their 10th lord is giving them secondary strength.

PD

On the nativities of Tesla and Einstein, etc, I would first note that not all traditionalists use the same zodiac. Second, we are primarily looking for a strong (however defined) Mercury, not a strong Saturn -- though naturally, the latter won't hurt. Saturn configured with Mercury will influence it in a certain direction, but it is still Mercury who signifies (or, to speak with Morin, has an analogy with) intellectual capacity. Finally, when Mercury is conjunct Saturn, the latter will necessarily be in the immediate vicinity of the Sun for much of the time. Whether it is actually heliacally set is a more complex question.

Martin wrote:

On the nativities of Tesla and Einstein, etc, I would first note that not all traditionalists use the same zodiac.

That's certainly true... But bear in mind that this particular question was raised by a Tropical astrologer on (as I believe) a Tropical forum regarding a Tropical chart, and was commented on by other Tropical astrologers, so I think it's quite adequate that we consider it in the Tropical zodiac.

Second, we are primarily looking for a strong (however defined) Mercury, not a strong Saturn -- though naturally, the latter won't hurt. Saturn configured with Mercury will influence it in a certain direction, but it is still Mercury who signifies (or, to speak with Morin, has an analogy with) intellectual capacity.

I beg to differ. We are talking about the combination of Mercury with Saturn here, really. A few keywords on this from Ebertin's Combination of Stellar Influences may serve to illustrate (I'm translating from my German edition): Depth of thought, mental work, logical thinking, thoroughness, concentration, objectivity, methodology. On the negative side we have things like: Inhibitions in mental development, clumsiness. So the question remains why these men are such outstanding examples of the former (as opposed to the latter) when Saturn is debilitated. Obviously we need to consider Mercury, too (which Paul did, to a degree).

Finally, when Mercury is conjunct Saturn, the latter will necessarily be in the immediate vicinity of the Sun for much of the time.

But by no means always! As you certainly know, Mercury can be as far as 28? away from the Sun; so, assuming an orb of 8?, Saturn can even be conjunct Mercury while being a safe 36? away from the Sun.

Whether it is actually heliacally set is a more complex question.

And an interesting one. Regarding it I dug out this interesting thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c4021ca28e

Paul and Pankaj, I will comment on your posts shortly.

Michael Sternbach wrote:That's certainly true... But bear in mind that this particular question was raised by a Tropical astrologer on (as I believe) a Tropical forum [...]

We certainly can't keep the forum all tropical unless we want to ban large chunks (historical and geographical) of astrological tradition, which would be a shame. I don't want to start another debate here; it was just a point relevant to the question of zodiacal dignities.

I beg to differ. We are talking about the combination of Mercury with Saturn here, really.

Yes, but a combination still consists of distinct elements with distinct significations, and intellect is a signification of Mercury. (We could view the combination the other way around and ask what Mercury is doing to the significations of Saturn, but then we wouldn't be discussing intellectual achievements anymore.) I don't think you will find a traditional source that views a combination of two planets as merging into a new, third element.

Saturn is in Aries, but in sect, and heliacally setting into the Sun's beams, whereby it loses some of its accidental fortitude - it is obscured in the sky.

I can see that Saturn in sect would be considered less debilitating. As to his being obscured and therefore decreased in strength, I wonder if this actually accurately describes Einstein's Saturn, as he seems to be strong, but in a constructive way (see Ebertin's keywords cited in my previous post).

At the same time Mercury is heliacally rising from the sun, in a 'phasis' condition and so making a pronouncement or exclamation in the sky, drawing our emphasis and attention. It emerges like a newborn with a sense of vitality.

This is interesting but if Mercury is really in a phasis condition would hinge on the question whether Mercury is in fact heliacally rising (if my understanding of these traditional terms is appropriate). By the way, what is the easiest way to compute whether a planet is in phasis? (I'm using the software Morinus for the more traditional considerations.)

As for Saturn, already noting it heliacally setting, it's also worth pointing out that not only is it in sect but also forming a mutual reception with Mars, its dispositor.

Right - I also notice that Mars is dignified by standing in his exaltation.

Obviously we should not begin and end our judgement of a chart with essential dignity alone. It's just one of several things we can take into consideration when forming our judgement.

Obviously.

Michael Sternbach wrote: I can see that Saturn in sect would be considered less debilitating. As to his being obscured and therefore decreased in strength, I wonder if this actually accurately describes Einstein's Saturn, as he seems to be strong, but in a constructive way (see Ebertin's keywords cited in my previous post).

Right, but I don't think we can have it both ways. We can't on one hand say Saturn is placed there so this should be a bad thing, but then say Saturn is placed there and this seems like a good thing. My personal view is that planets in fall tend to fail to manifest their symbolism in a constructive and controlled way, but may instead manifest in a manner which is unorthodox or atypical. But whilst helically setting banishes some of the influence of the planet involved one way we might want to mix these testimonies is to consider that Saturn here is making some of its last appearances before setting and so these qualities of manifesting outside the box or in an unorthodox manner may be more noticeable. In this way I would form a judgement that Saturn here is showing there to be a lack of limits in a way, or a failure to be contained within a box, particularly in regards Mercury who, as you note, applies to Saturn, keeping in mind that Saturn is in sect and mutual reception with its dispositor, and Mercury helically rises and so inundates the chart with its quality. Together it at least suggests, to me at least, something of Einstein's genius.

This is interesting but if Mercury is really in a phasis condition would hinge on the question whether Mercury is in fact heliacally rising (if my understanding of these traditional terms is appropriate). By the way, what is the easiest way to compute whether a planet is in phasis? (I'm using the software Morinus for the more traditional considerations.)

I don't have software to calculate it, but I go by as the Greeks did which is to apply an orb to the Sun. Others, such as Rumen Kolev, suggest being more mathematical as you do here. If you have the software, perhaps check and see.

Anyway my point is more that we should be wary of throwing away traditional astrology just on the strength of whether or not we observe, in a cookbook style, whether the essential dignities appear to be working as we might expect. Sometimes there are other things going on (like here with helical rising/setting).

pankajdubey wrote:

It will be wrong to think that their life was smooth ,rosy and all up and above.

Einstein had a dull job problem, a Hitler problem and leaving Germany problem.

The brilliance of Tesla was clouded by by the Direct current multi-patent Edison.

They rose in spite of the debility and the dispositor of their 10th lord is giving them secondary strength.

Yes, it may well be that the difficulties these men experienced had to do with their "debilitated" Saturn positions. What I'm trying to understand here, however, is how their extraordinary mental abilities could unfold despite their Saturn in conjunction with their Mercury, from a traditional perspective.

Well, a couple of things about Einstein's chart: anyone with Mercury in the 10th house making his evening appearance and in a sign of Mars is going to be brilliant mathematically. Secondly, Einstein also has Jupiter making his morning appearance 4 days after the birth in his own sign, culminating while Fomalhaut is also culminating. Fomalhaut is a star of knowledge traditionally, and Jupiter's own powerful position here augments its effects. Also, with the Moon in aversion to the ASC, Jupiter has the opportunity to speak for the native himself, and of his general life experience, by virtue of being in the 9th sign and being powerful enough to be heard.

I have seen planets combining with fixed stars and then dominating the life regardless of other considerations. It happens too with planets on their own. The chart has to be read holistically and not in a piecemeal fashion nor in a x + y = z manner. If two planets are making appearances in angles in a chart, then these two have to be considered the most dominant planets in that chart and they will seize control of the life from the others despite the powerful planets not ruling anything too major in the chart . Not every planet has an equal voice, and especially not in Einstein's life. Mostly, planets find importance via management of vital parts of the chart like the ASC, the Sect Light and by acting as the Alcocoden, for example, but in Einstein's case we have a couple of usurpers. That's not to say that Saturn will be meaningless though. Looking at Einstein's time-lords, it looks like he was the one charged with taking Einstein from Germany and moving him abroad, but even then the general fortune found throughout Einstein's nativity meant that despite in effect being in exile, he still had a fortunate experience there. This general overview of a chart is the main reason for me concluding that attempts to "prove" astrology statistically are always going to fail. It just doesn't work that way. There are certain configurations that everything else in the life has to abide by and work with if they want to be heard in that life. In this case, it is the power of Mercury and Jupiter.