Skyscript Astrology Forum

Tom:

And what is best: to have a weak malefic in the chart or a strong malefic?

I would say strong malefic. I define strong as the planet being able to "act like itself." A strong Mars gives Courage. A strong Saturn gives self discipline. A weak Mars is a bully. A weak Saturn is too strict. I'm taking the Christian theological position that nothing created is evil, therefore Mars and Saturn cannot be evil, but evil can be done with them by a person who chooses that route. Again this is strictly based on essential dignity. Accidental dignity or debility will affect how a strong or weak malefic manifests in the life.

The last article I wrote was about this matter.

I studied 200 charts of people who died before 30 comparing to people who lived at least untill 80 years of age, all of them with angular malefics. My interest was to find out if dignified malefics appeared more in the 2nd group.

I used samples taken from the Astrodatabank software and I counted ( using fingers ) how many malefics in good or bad celestial situation were found, and in which house.

It was not an statistical study,but I believe in some results that I?ll summarize:
Saturn in good shape is much better than in bad shape.
( I didn?t like it at all, because my Saturn is in Cancer, and you?re right, I?m very strict.)

But the amazing thing is that Mars?situation seemed to be indiferent.

If you have some time take a look :http://www.astrologiahumana.com/maleficsinangles.pdf

PS: the English as you certainly know, is not very good. Sorry by that:-)

Clelia

Clelia Romano wrote:Tom:

And what is best: to have a weak malefic in the chart or a strong malefic?

I would say strong malefic. I define strong as the planet being able to "act like itself." A strong Mars gives Courage. A strong Saturn gives self discipline. A weak Mars is a bully. A weak Saturn is too strict. I'm taking the Christian theological position that nothing created is evil, therefore Mars and Saturn cannot be evil, but evil can be done with them by a person who chooses that route. Again this is strictly based on essential dignity. Accidental dignity or debility will affect how a strong or weak malefic manifests in the life.

The last article I wrote was about this matter.

I studied 200 charts of people who died before 30 comparing to people who lived at least untill 80 years of age, all of them with angular malefics. My interest was to find out if dignified malefics appeared more in the 2nd group.

I used samples taken from the Astrodatabank software and I counted ( using fingers ) how many malefics in good or bad celestial situation were found, and in which house.

It was not an statistical study,but I believe in some results that I?ll summarize:
Saturn in good shape is much better than in bad shape.
( I didn?t like it at all, because my Saturn is in Cancer, and you?re right, I?m very strict.)

But the amazing thing is that Mars?situation seemed to be indiferent.

If you have some time take a look :http://www.astrologiahumana.com/maleficsinangles.pdf

PS: the English as you certainly know, is not very good. Sorry by that:-)

Clelia

Rob Hand has suggested that this sort of thing should be sorted according to sect as a diurnal Mars and nocturnal Saturn will show greater extremes than the reverse.

Hi Curt

Rob Hand has suggested that this sort of thing should be sorted according to sect as a diurnal Mars and nocturnal Saturn will show greater extremes than the reverse.

It?s a good idea to do a second study! I still have all the charts I used, and I could look at them according to this point of view.

I have to figure it out how to take into account the sect, besides the age of death..

But it is possible to do and it?s good study to be done!

Clelia

Hello Clelia and Curtis

zoidsoft wrote: I had a client back in the mid 90's who had Saturn opposite his Sun and Mars opposite his Moon. He became blind in both eyes shortly after birth.

Yes, see Andrea Bocelli, the famous Italian tenor

http://bit.ly/9XECBa

Sun in square to Saturn and Moon trine with Mars (moreover here the Sun is with the nebula of Coma Berenis)

zoidsoft wrote: Rob Hand has suggested that this sort of thing should be sorted according to sect as a diurnal Mars and nocturnal Saturn will show greater extremes than the reverse.

Giuseppe Bezza too.
I see even if from independent studies (I don't know almost anything of Schmidt and his entourage, I studied Bezza books and methods ) we are on the same page.

Clelia wrote: I really liked the idea that the combustion is the end of a cycle for a planet.
You?re ponting out one important thing: Lilly considered that the Sun could be afflicted by a malefic not only by aspect but by conjunction.

I agree with everything Deborah says about the cycle of planets, it's the same I was taught. A superior planet at its heliacal setting is at the end of its cycle, and this is very important for what that planet can or cannot do.

On the other hand Lilly's text is not really Lilly, it's Lilly English modern (for him) translation of Ptolemy.
When I don't understand Ptolemy (always) I just open CA III because Lilly always puts it in easier words.

margherita

The contradictions are problematic but I believe that to accept the principle that combustion weakens means that there is definitely a limit to how much the planet is able to damage the Sun.

Here is a relevant comment from Bonatti (III.IV - Rob Hand translation)

• [The Sun] signifies also great kingship, and all other dignities of the laity, both of great men as well as of others. And this is so because the Sun himself is placed in the middle of the other planets as a king, and the others stand near him, some on one side, others on the other side, namely the superiors on the right, the inferiors on his left. And he himself has power over all of the planets because he burns them all.

And yet, I do agree that Sun conjunct Mars results in destructive Mars-type effects. I see this as the Sun destroying them, and they being able to harm the Sun to a diminishing effect, dependent upon the limit of combustion. Hence a planet 'under the rays' at 15? is still able to put up a good fight, but as the meeting gets closer, the planet loses its strength dramatically in the last few degrees. This seems to be the gist of what Bonatti explains in bk 3, ch.8. His 53rd consideration is interesting "Whether the significator be under the Sun beams, for then he will be of small efficacy in anything as aforesaid; yet the Malevolents will be something more strong in evil than the Benevolents in good".

As I've been working from Dorotheus today, here's a couple of relevant comments from his text, which parallel that thought:

? The planets, if they are under the rays of the Sun towards the west, their power disappears and they have no power ? I.16 (p.165) [I think here the word 'west' is really referring to occidental, which can mean perishing into the Sun, as well as 'west']

o If Saturn is with the Sun, he will spoil his father?s property and his end will come to misery, and worse than this in a nocturnal nativity ? if the Sun is less in degrees then it is more terrible and worse because a horrible death will come to the father ? II.18 (difficult to know if the Sun, Saturn - or both - are descriptive of the father)
o If Jupiter is with the Sun under its rays, it indicates a decrease of everything. II.19
o If Mars is with the Sun, it indicates the swiftness of his father?s death. It is worse and more terrible if it is in a cardine or what follows a cardine ? it indicates pain for the native and aches, and he will be envious, squandering his father?s property, and iron or fire will fall on him. II.19

- Interesting that Jupiter combust does not allow its beneficial influence, yet the malefics combust allows their malefic influence. Elsewhere (con. 43) Bonatti states that the malefics lose their power to harm when combust in the same way that the benefics lose the power to do good.

Deb

Hi Deb:

As I've been working from Dorotheus today, here's a couple of relevant comments from his text, which parallel that thought:

? The planets, if they are under the rays of the Sun towards the west, their power disappears and they have no power ? I.16 (p.165) [I think here the word 'west' is really referring to occidental, which can mean perishing into the Sun, as well as 'west']

o If Saturn is with the Sun, he will spoil his father?s property and his end will come to misery, and worse than this in a nocturnal nativity ? if the Sun is less in degrees then it is more terrible and worse because a horrible death will come to the father ? II.18 (difficult to know if the Sun, Saturn - or both - are descriptive of the father)
o If Jupiter is with the Sun under its rays, it indicates a decrease of everything. II.19 or If Mars is with the Sun, it indicates the swiftness of his father?s death. It is worse and more terrible if it is in a cardine or what follows a cardine ? it indicates pain for the native and aches, and he will be envious, squandering his father?s property, and iron or fire will fall on him. II.19

Thanks for providing Dorotheus? approach on the question. Very helpful!
And Bonatti?s also, who is controversail about the matter: malefics have more power to cause damages than benefics to help.

At least it is a consolation to know that even the ancients were also a little confused about the power of the malefics when in combustion.

Clelia

Deb wrote:The contradictions are problematic but I believe that to accept the principle that combustion weakens means that there is definitely a limit to how much the planet is able to damage the Sun.

That's what I was trying to bring up in my first post Deb. When combust, a planet loses it's light, but not completely, only most of it (it is at it's faintest, but there are other symbolic analogies to be drawn in that moment).

Also, to conclude what a planet does is mainly derived from it's quality, and combustion is more of a quantitative debility (planet is overpowered concerning strength).

Al-Biruni says, the Sun acts as a malefic when close and as a benefic when distant.

I suppose that as a weak planet loses it's ability to help the native, then it can only damage or frustrate itself when called upon, and that's why a malefic still hurts in that position and benefics are of little help.

Therefore, I think we should pay attention here to the nature of what being malefic and benefic means. Lilly states that when harm comes through a benefic, "they hold no malice". Also, benefics only become really problematic when they are in essential debility (when they are afflicted, they are not the problem, the problem is the afflicting planet). The benefics in a weak position can not provide good, but they have no reason, essentially, to make evil. It's not in their nature.

A malefic, on the contrary, is only less of a problem when in dignity. In this situation, we say that the positive outcome may come even if from an essentially difficulty/undesirable modality. Therefore, the weaker a malefic is in power, the less able it is to provide whatever goodness it could otherwise, so it just let it's natural evil freed through whatever modality it represents (i.e, if it is martial in nature, it will come as the worse Mars could represent, violence, then we should search for whatever that is pointing to, looking at aspects and placement).

We hold dear the principle of light as the principle that allows planets to mirror our existence of corruption (alongside their speed, showing corruption as opposed to the "fixed stars", which are eternal). But we should remember that light is in constant interplay with darkness. Among the reasons why the star Algol is considered so evil, is the fact that it is glowing dimly, and that sometimes it blinks, a sign of evil omen (a star plunging into the dark). The same principle is apllied to Saturn, lord of darkness, the planet that rejoices in the cold and damp enviroment opposite to the Sun's own. In so knowing this, the lady of night, Moon (the closest to the material world) rules for half the time and embraces all, giving simmetry to existence, showing that although the Sun holds power over every planet, as in the biblical myth, where God himself created all, still there is opposition to it, in the form of a creature that fell from his grace and has it's own realm (Saturn). So, the Sun is not alone in it's rulership, even if ultimately, all should return to it.

That's the paradox that I believe, confused even the ancients and reflected in their legacy. When going into combustion, during the day the planet is going into the light, and during the night it's delving into the dark. All of this represents the same, blindness, unknown, death. But still, for each, there is also some differences, as in a day nativity this could be better than in a night one, that light is good and darkness bad, and from these analogies, doubt in judgment will obviously rise.

Still, the simple fact that a planet in combustion has a dim light points in my opinion that it's evil is increased actually, even if it's strength is diminished (especially when going into it). And the temporal factor will take care of things, in so being, even weak, the planet holds a principle that will not simply vanish from the natives life, only it will manifest itself through it's weakest/worse forms (and even a combust planet will aspect the Sun through directions, revolutions and transits at some point, and if the configuration is correct, something may trigger out of it, likely not good, or else, less than desirable).

PS: I did not give too much attention to house placement, that adds a little to this take. For example, Rob Hand says that the only situation you do not want a malefic strong/in domicile is when inside the 12th house and ruling it, and I agree. In considering houses that are contrary to the well fare of the native, weakness of it's elements (if malefics) may favor the native.

There are some really nice, thoughtful, comments in your post Paulo, and I like the way you expressed some of the principles - especially this:

although the Sun holds power over every planet, as in the biblical myth, where God himself created all, still there is opposition to it, in the form of a creature that fell from his grace (Saturn). So, the Sun is not alone in it's rulership, even if ultimately, all should return to it.

As I don't have much time I'm not sure if I can express this elegantly, but I strongly connect to the idea of the Sun conducting the cosmic orchestra, never being destroyed itself, but suffering affliction when its creative/illuminating light is weak or impeded. Hence the Sun, being an honest planet, never signifies deceit in its essential signification, but when impeded it shows that honesty and truth is withheld, and so forth.

Al-Biruni says, the Sun acts as a malefic when close and as a benefic when distant.

I think he means by conjunction or aspect - many authors talk about the Sun being a benefic by aspect, but a malefic by conjunction. We have the analogy of not being able to look directly at it - it is too powerful for such close contact.

Hello Tom

Tom wrote:What would life be without a true contrarian? With this in mind I present the arguments of everyone?s favorite contrarian, Jean Baptiste Morin DeVillefranche, aka Morinus. In book 17 of Astrologia Gallica he devotes three [short] chapters to the question of combustion and concludes that the old astrologers had it all wrong. Nothing surprising there, but his arguments, as always, are interesting. I can?t quote everything he wrote, but I?ll hit a few highlights.

Morin just does not consider the phases of planets to the Sun. In Ptolemy and all the ancient astrologers the phase, ie the aspect that the planet makes with the Sun is very important.
Not just the combustion, but in every moment of the cycle the planet has a different meaning and a different nature.

When John Frawley says that an oriental Saturn is dry is wrong, because he does not consider the phase Saturn makes with the Sun.

When the planet is combust means something, when it is oriental something else, when retrograde something else again and so on, it's a more general scheme.

I don't know if Morin discards all the rest, or just the conjunction with the Sun, but this is obviously out of whatever astrological tradition.

My idea is Morin was living when cosmos already worked in another way and and epicycles were at his back.
margherita

margherita wrote:

When John Frawley says that an oriental Saturn is dry is wrong, because he does not consider the phase Saturn makes with the Sun.

margherita

John Frawley says oriental Saturn is cold and wet and occidental Saturn is dry.
(transcript of Belgrade seminar 2002 on Natal astrology - in Serbian language).
He says (short version): I think Saturn is cold and dry by nature but Ptolemy says it is cold and wet and, so let?s follow Ptolemy.

Trojan

Hello Trojan

horarcek wrote: John Frawley says oriental Saturn is cold and wet and occidental Saturn is dry.
(transcript of Belgrade seminar 2002 on Natal astrology - in Serbian language).
He says (short version): I think Saturn is cold and dry by nature but Ptolemy says it is cold and wet and, so let?s follow Ptolemy.
Trojan

Gossips say that Frawley changed his mind and in his forthcoming book will state that an oriental Saturn is dry, and there was mistranslation of Ptolemy or something like that, now I don't remember. I don't remember which recent congress or lecture he explained this.

I really hope he can change his mind before he publishes the book.

margherita