Skyscript Astrology Forum

Sue asked a question about planets besieged that was not archived. Although rare, this is an important concept, and learning it, whether or not we ever encounter it, gives some insight into the mind of the traditional astrologer. In general planets are said to be besieged if they are between either Mars and Saturn (malefic) or Jupiter and Venus (benefic). Sue wanted to know if the planets all have to be in the same sign to qualify. I did some investigation of the opinions of the authorities and post them here.

The Hellenistic Astrologers:

I couldn?t find a reference in Ptolemy, Firmicus, Paulus or Dorotheus. This is not to say it isn?t there. I may have missed it, but I doubt I missed it in all four works, including two translations of Ptolemy.

The Medieval Astrologers

Al-Biruni: ?A planet is said to be besieged when situated between two others, as, e.g., when a planet in sign 1 is surrounded by others in signs 2 and 12. It also occurs when three planets are in one sign, the middle one whose degree is less than the one and higher than the other is said to be corporally besieged. Again a planet is described as besieged by the rays when in front of it is another in sextile or quartile and another is behind it in like aspect.?

Concerning this last, ?besieged by the rays? sounds like a T-square. An interesting omission is separating from a square and applying to an opposition, or separating from a sextile and applying to a trine, etc.

Ibn Ezra: [Note: in the beginning of the 7th chapter of The Beginning of Wisdom, Ibn Ezra lists 30 conditions of the planets. Besiegement is number 29. However, when we look at the text, the heading is ?Middle Position.?] He says: ? ? when a planet separates from one malefic planet and joins another by conjunction or aspect, or when a benefic or malefic planet is in the sign preceding it and another planet is in the following sign. If the Sun aspects the middle planet between two malefics, it mitigates the harm considerably.?

While this is not as clear as it might be, he seems to be saying the same thing as Al Biruni, but more. I think he means that if, say, the Moon separates from a conjunction with Mars and applies to a square with Saturn, with no intervening aspects, this is a besiegement.

Abu Mashar, says the same thing as Ibn Ezra and is more clear. He allows for my speculation. So at least three Arab writers are in accordance. Looking to medieval Western authorities Cardan, and Bonatti specifically, there doesn?t seem to be any discord. In the Astrologer?s Guide, Bonatti?s sixth consideration says in part that a planets are debilitated: ?When they are besieged by the infortunes, so as to separate from one and be joined to another, without perfect reception of House, Exaltation, or two of the smaller dignities, which are term, triplicity and face.?

I couldn?t find a reference by Cardan in my collection.

Classical Astrologers

I could not find a reference to besiegement in either Book 21 or Book 22 of Morin?s Astrological Gallica. It may be elsewhere in this 26-volume work. Lilly defines besiegement as: ?Besieging is, when any planet is placed betwixt the bodies of the two malevolent planets Saturn and Mars: as Saturn in 15 Aries, Mars in 10 of Aries, Venus in 13. Here Venus is besieged by the two infortunes, and it represents in questions, a man going out of God?s blessing into the warm Sun. I mean is Venus be a significatrix that time in time in the figure.?

I do not understand that last sentence, and even wondered if it was a typo made by the individual who retyped my edition, but the sentence is as it appears in the original, and in the 1659 edition that he calls ?corrected and amended.? It must be me. Lilly seems to be limiting besiegement to a planet between the malefics and not including aspects. Is this a deliberate omission? The next sentence is this: ?There are other accidents belonging to the planets one amongst another mentioned by the ancients, but of so little purpose in judgment that I have clearly omitted them.? He may not by buying into the idea that a planet aspecting two malefics is a true besiegement.

Modern Astrologers (i.e., 19th century and later)

I trust these least of all. Often their understanding is limited, not due to any intellectual or ethical shortcomings, but due to the lack of availability original sources.

Sepharial: ?A significator between two benefics or two malefics is said to be besieged by them. When the malefic planets are involved in this configuration the significance is very evil.?

Interesting choice of words. He says ?significator? not ?planet.?

Luke Broughton: ?Besieged is when a planet, fortunate by nature, is situated between two malevolent planets ? where she is in a state of ?siege? and highly unfortunate. He whose significator it was would be noted thereby to be in ?great strait,? and particularly ?hemmed in? or surrounded with ill fortune.?

The two previous definitions limit the effect to malefic planets. Broughton limits it further to a benefic between two malefics. Therefore, Mercury cannot be besieged?

Nicholas de Vore: A benefic planet situated between two malefics, within the orbs of each, is said to be besieged and therefore unfortunately placed. Some authorities restrict its application to a Significator when between and within orbs of two benefics. Older authorities, who applied the term to a planet situated between any two planets, considered a planet between Venus and Jupiter to be favorably besieged, but if between Mars and Saturn it was in an extremely unfavorable position.?

De Vore adds a new wrinkle: the planets must be within orb of each other, but apparently not necessarily within the same sign. He does not specify his contemporary ?authorities,? but I would bet they were 20th century types. This is a good example of why I don?t trust contemporary sources. Of the three ?modern? astrologers I quoted, de Vore is the only one from the 20th century.

In summary, the ancients don?t seem to be concerned with it. The medievalists seem to have defined it. The moderns seem to misunderstand it.

So where does this leave us? Lilly seems to be the lone traditional dissenter, and possibly this is why the moderns, who had little or no access to the older texts, don?t mention the idea of besiegement by aspect. I tend to side with the medievalists on theoretical grounds. If, say, Venus, separates from Saturn and his ill effects, and next applies to Mars and his ill effects, Venus influence in the chart will not be positive. Why should this be limited to conjunctions? Surely Venus proceeding from a square to Mars to a square to Saturn is not a desirable position. I would add that if Venus were separating from a square from Mars and applying to an opposition of Saturn, she would have a negative effect on a chart. Whether or not this constitutes the definition of a particular word seems to be of secondary importance. Her effects are likely to be negative.

The original question was one of sign however. I?m less persuaded by Al-Biruni on this matter. Saturn in Taurus, and Mars in Cancer have no real effect on Venus in Gemini. There is no aspect among them, and no strong mutual reception either (which would negate the effects of the besiegement). I suppose the idea is that Venus in Gemini picked up negative influences from Saturn in Taurus and would deliver them to Mars in Cancer, but the Moon will certainly (in most cases) conjunct Venus long before she gets to Mars.

I would limit besiegement by conjunction to the same sign. I would also keep my eye out for besiegement by aspect.

I?d like to hear other thoughts on this subject.

Tom

Thanks for that comprehensive explanation Tom.

From what I can gather of modern thought on besiegement, some astrologers take besiegement as a planet in difficult aspect to a malefic and then moving immediately to a difficult aspect of another malefic. Barbara Watters seems to only take into account the Moon in her definition of besiegement and sees any difficult aspect of the Moon from one malefic to another malefic as indicating an unfavourable outcome regardless of other positive influences. Others believe besiegement to be a planet, particularly a significator, caught between two malefics without taking aspect or signs into account.

The reason I asked this question is that in the ferry accident (chart in Mundane forum) the Moon, a main significator, is between Mars and Saturn with no other planets in between. However, there is no aspect between them and the Moon is aspecting the Sun and Mercury. Some astrologers would classify this as besiegement and others wouldn't. To me, besiegement means being trapped but the Moon isn't trapped as it has a way out through it's beneficial aspects to other planets. I was interested to hear what others thought.

some astrologers take besiegement as a planet in difficult aspect to a malefic and then moving immediately to a difficult aspect of another malefic

That is the definition I use, and I wouldn't be concerned about sign cusps. The general description of a beseiged planet is one that goes 'from bad to worse', so the state of moving from the contact (aspect or conjunction) or a malefic and then applying directly to another suggests that it's already been loaded with negative energy and has more to face - so its beseiged and trapped by bad influences on both sides.

Thanks. That definition makes a lot more sense than some of the others I have read. I couldn't quite work out why being between the two malefics regardless of anything else made it necessarily difficult, particularly if the so-called besieged planet was making positive aspects to other planets.

Thanks for the detailed references Tom. It really helps to review the issue from a wider perspective.

Hello,

I have found another definition of besieged planets in J. Lee Lehman's book, "Essential Dignities", Whitford, p. 32, when she writes about the Confederation States Chart (feb 4, 1861, 12h LMT, Montgomery AL, 32N23 86W19):

"The essence of the country was uncomfortable - or untenable. The Sun ruled the Fourth house, which represents the land. With the strong emphasis on limitation (Saturn) of the Sun, and with Saturn placed in the Fourth house, the land was besieged. In other words, this suggests that in battle, the CSA bore most of the burden."

What happens in this chart, is that Sun is in Aquarius, the Fourth house cusp in Leo and Saturn, in 4th house and in Virgo, thus Sun being besieged because Saturn rules Sun, its house cusp ruler. Instead, if Saturn is in Leo it is a mutual reception.

Does anyone know what are the sources (author, if any) of this definition?

Many Thanks.

Tom wrote:I am going to guess that the astrological idea of Saturn dispositing the Sun and restricting the land all by himself is a kind of beseigement, is Lehman's alone. It is an outstanding observation and use of the dispositor and there is no historical doubt that the resouces of the CSA were limited, but to me anyway, this is not a beseigement.

Hello Tom,

Many thanks for this wonderful post. Very helpful!

Well, I found a quote in Abu ali Al khayyat that may be about besiegement:

"And in fact, the moon, in nocturnal nativities, signifies the loss of good fortune in this way: if the moon is separated from evil planets and its next application is to evil planets, it signifies the loss of good fortune"

If this is really the case, would indicate that Abu ali is worried not with signs, but with the last planet sepparated and next applied to.