I have in my head, the idea that I've read somewhere, that the power of a good planet in it's fall or detriment is not simply incapacitated but actually malign.

Is this correct?

I have Jupiter in Capricorn (fall) so is my natal Jupiter malign? I don't think so. Jupiter is in the 11th and I have had some great luck through friends in my life, I can't imagine that Jupiter is working against me as a malign influence.

Perhaps the rules are different in horary, but I don't think a "benefic" can ever become a "malefic," no matter how badly placed it is.

However, I suppose a way in which Jupiter could operate "malefically," is if its strength were to amplify the effects of a negative house, or an evil aspect. e.g. Jupiter ruled the 6th and increased the effects of illness; or Jupiter was involved in, say, a Mars/Jupiter/Saturn T-square (which would aggravate the effects of the Mars/Saturn square).

But in these examples, the problem would be caused by a STRONG Jupiter; not a weakened Jupiter in detriment or fall.

Perhaps the rules are different in horary, but I don't think a "benefic" can ever become a "malefic," no matter how badly placed it is.

Actually I was only talking about horary, since I would interpret Jupiter (as an example) in a nativity, progression or transit via its "expansion" keyword and this naturally would depend on the where, how, what of its placement and aspects. Jupiter will expand what it comes into contact with, good or bad, it isn't that fussy.

In horary, Jupiter can represent many things other than "expansion". A person or lost possession for instance. I'm not good at making up examples, but it was in this context that I was asking the question.

However I'm aware that in horary the rules can change somewhat, so decided to ask for clarification. I only have Lilly's CA 1 & 2 and JF's books on horary (stopped reading M&M in Jan ) so unless I read it on a website somewhere, that's where I think I must have got it from. I also don't think the reference was to both fall and detriment, just one, but I can't remember which one. And then again I may have misread the whole thing and I need to "unstick" this piece of information if it is, in fact, wrong

Well! I found it myself. I have only had JF's Horary Textbook a week and obviously saw this while flicking through before starting to read the book from the beginning. Got up to p45 last night (well I am reading 4 books concurrently!) and there it was -

The more essential dignity a planet has, the better it conforms to its innate good nature, and so is able to show itself at its best. The more debilitated it is, the more it is deformed from this innate goodness, and so manifests its nastier side.
This is true of any planet:

Any planet in its detriment or fall can be malign.
Any planet in its sign or exaltation can behave well.

This is one of the most important rules in astrology. Although it is usual to call Jupiter and Venus benefics and Saturn and Mars malefics, I urge you to treat any planet that is essentially debilitated as malefic, any planet that is essentially strong as benefic.

John Frawley's bolding not mine. He goes on to talk about this strength or weakness being contained within the context of the question. Then

A direct descriptive relevance within the context can override the positive or negative indications of any dignity or debility, whether essential or accidental. A lost unbrella was signified by Saturn in Cancer. This is a perfect description of the object: it is a barrier (Saturn). What sort of barrier? A wet sort of barrier (Cancer). Even though Saturn is in its detriment, this placement can be taken as descriptive and does not mean it was a decrepit umbrella.
Another example: Jupiter in Pisces is a strongly dignified benefic. But if I ask what the weather will be at the beach, Jupiter, god of rain, in watery Pisces would be a malefic within the context of my question.

Just wondering where he got this from, I am not sufficiently familiar with Lilly to know if it leads from there, or if this comes from JF's own experience.

It makes a lot of sense to me, just wondering if others would concur with this.

"Malefic" does not necessarily mean "bad."
"Benefic" does not necessarily mean "good."

Once we get this straight the fatalism drifts away. The best way I can think of to describe these two words as they are intended is that malefic represents things or events we don't care for, and benefic things or events we like. But we may like that extra (Jupiter) piece of pie (Venus), but it isn't good for us and the combined effects of the "benefics" is not good or perhaps "malefic."

Cleaning out the garage (Saturn) is not as much fun as eating the extra piece of pie, but it is necessary and therefore good for us or "benefic."

A lovely trine from Jupiter may kill you (malefic); it may only mean an easy death (benefic?).

This is what John means when he says:

Any planet in its detriment or fall can be malign.
Any planet in its sign or exaltation can behave well.

One more example using Jupiter. Jupiter increases, so Jupiter in a wet sign in a horary means "lots of wet." "Lots of wet" in a question regarding the weather means rain or snow whichever is appropriate. This is basic horary symbolism. Sometimes we can take the symbolism literally or sometimes it should be taken metaphorically. This is what judgment is all about.

Don't get hung up on the value judgments of the words "benefic" and "malefic." Yes, the traditional texts do that, and we get a lot of bad press as a result. Astrologers are always better at describing tragedy than they are pleasantries. Tragedy sells. Look at any tabloid newspaper in the US or the UK [My personal favorite is from the New York Post whose headline once screamed: "Headless Body Found In Topless Bar." How uplifting is that?]. Instead try to grasp what is being communicated: hard versus easy, pleasant versus unpleasant. Yes, these are value judgments, too, but less so and a whole lot easier to grasp. Saturn and Jupiter are both necessary as are Mars and Venus, whether we like it or not.

Tom

so "malign" = bad

whereas "malefic" doesnt necessarily mean "bad"

right?

I suppose I was confusing my terminology by treating these more or less as interchangeable.

so "malign" = bad

whereas "malefic" doesnt necessarily mean "bad"

right?

Yes, depending on the usage. Saturn will always be the greater malefic, but Saturn is not always malign. Jupiter will always be the greater benefic, but Jupiter will not always be benign.

Hope this helps,

Tom

Hi Tom

I appreciated your input on this and was trying to get my head around your previous examples before replying but this really bedded it down for me:-

Yes, depending on the usage. Saturn will always be the greater malefic, but Saturn is not always malign. Jupiter will always be the greater benefic, but Jupiter will not always be benign.

I think that puts it in context beautifully, thanks.

Perhaps another example from the Horary Texbook might help others:-

When Jupiter or Venus - the Greater and the Lesser Benefic - is in detriment or fall there is likely to be a pleasing veneer over something unpleasant or harmful. A question was asked about a woman who had suffered a severe allergic reaction to a soft drink. The drink was signified by Venus in Virgo, the sign of its fall: the drink tasted good (Venus) but was harmful (in fall).

My personal favorite is from the New York Post whose headline once screamed: "Headless Body Found In Topless Bar."
I can't believe they printed that!