PallasAthene wrote:PFN, your planets station RX I assume?

No, both of them 2nd station, very slow. They deliver, but in a delayed fashion as before said. If they were station to retrogradation it would be a lot worse I guess.

One example that I like to use is a secondary progression on my mother's chart. She has a RX Mercury as ruler of 5th (Virgo). The year Mercury turns direct in her chart by secondary is the same year she got pregnant for the first time (guestimating, very near the same month Mercury turned direct, more exactly when he speeds up for real). There were other testimonies as well, like the firdar (she was in a Mercury sub-ruler period, the AC of the SR was in Virgo with Mercury, Moon and Venus inside in a tight stellium, etc...). Interesting isn't it?

Another interesting fact, possibly not related to retrogradation, except maybe, as a bad choice in life, worth notice anyway. Also on my mother's chart, she has Saturn RX on 11th (Pisces) ruling the 10th (Aquarius). My grandmother died around the moment Saturn hit Venus trigon by secondary progression. Venus is on the cusp of my mother's 5th (in fall) the turned 8th for my grandmother (8th from 10th). She died due to complications of diabetis (Venus=sugar) posited in this turned 8th's cusp natally in my mother's chart.

I'm not saying that the above presented matter of pregnance was delayed, as she was very young at the time, but the fact that by a simbolical motion Mercury had to turn direct in order to properly deliver it's function sure is a good sign of how retrogradation affects something. So I re-state retrogradation as a debility, preventing, delaying (or speeding up in certain contexts, but in a reverse motion to natural or "correct" way) or damaging, 1st station likely worse.

Yes, I agree, retrograde is a most definitely a debility. But on natal charts Rx can actually mean 3 different things....stationing retrograde, retrograde and stationing direct which needs to be differentiated. Sorry, this is probably a rookie observation.

In keeping with planetary speed, it seems that a planet standing still at stationing direct is "better than" a slow retrograde one.

PallasAthene wrote:In keeping with planetary speed, it seems that a planet standing still at stationing direct is "better than" a slow retrograde one.

I agree with that.

Avraham Ibn-Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 136 and 137, differentiates as follows:

"91) A planet about to turn retrograde is like a frightened person, fearing adversieties that are coming to him.

92) A retrograde planet is like a rebellious and defiant person.

93) A planet in its second station is like a person hoping for good [circumstances].

94) A planet slowing down is like a person who is exhausted and has no strength to walk.

95) A planet swift in motion is like a young man running."

Johannes

Sorry, I missed your quote of Ibn-Ezra, PallasAthene!

But the differences of both translations are still interesting. I quoted the translation of Meira B. Epstein.