Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi

Several classical astrologers, including Guido Bonatti and Morin, say that a malefic such as Saturn or Mars, if dignified and/or placed in an angle or a succedent house, behaves like a benefic.

Then, when is a natural malefic strong for doing harm ? Is it when it is in fall and/or in a cadent house ? And if so, isn't it contradictory ?

Regards

The contradiction is probably based upon the manner how you are connecting essential and accidental dignities.

A planet can be good or bad (essential dignity or debility) and can act as such a good or bad planet strongly or weakly according to its accidental dignity.

Would you mind to give a quotation of Morin where he says something like:

"a malefic such as Saturn or Mars, if dignified and/or placed in an angle or a succedent house, behaves like a benefic."

?

I don't believe that Morin ever said that a malefic like Saturn placed in an angle or in a succedent house would behave like a benefic only because of its accidental position if it is not dignified at the same time.

Johannes

Several classical astrologers, including Guido Bonatti and Morin, say that a malefic such as Saturn or Mars, if dignified and/or placed in an angle or a succedent house, behaves like a benefic.

This isn't exactly correct regarding Morin (I don't know about Bonatti). The reality is a bit more complex. For example.

Planets that are in good celestial state and located in fortunate houses of the chart, diurnal during the day and nocturnal during the night [in both cases] above the Earth, are beneficial even if they are malefic by nature,. In the opposite situation, their virtue is degraded; and as a result they have noxious effects even though they may be benefic by nature, corresponding to the way in which the good an d bad states of the planet are proportioned." Astrologia Gallica Book 18 pages 13-14.

Now if this is as far as we get, it does seem to support Martine, at least a little bit. But it ignores a more fundamental part of Morin's philosophy, and that is the principle of analogy. The planet will promise what its essential nature can deliver but it will deliver it in abundance if it is analogous to the house that it occupies, but less so if there is no analogy.

Any analogy between the planet's nature and the house's accidental meanings should be well noted. For the Sun in the 10th shows preferment though its very nature, since it bears analogy to and is therefore in natural agreement with this. on the other hand Saturn by nature denies preferment for the contrary reason. However this is by nature, for accidentally the Sun in the tenth would deny preferment if in an adverse celestial state such as exile, peregrine, and squared or opposed by the malefics, or also -- which would make things worse -- its ruler were adversely placed in addition. Or if it granted something because of its location in the tenth and its analogy the result would be attended by difficulties, hindrances and misfortunes, which would be the greater the more afflicted the condition of the Sun. On the other hand, Saturn in the tenth could accidentally bring honors and preferment if it were in the its own sign, or in exaltation, oriental to the Sun, moving rapidly in forward motion, and trine the Moon, Jupiter, or Venus. - Book 21 page 43 Baldwin translation

In other words a well placed malefic could bring about good fortune, but not in the same measure as a well placed benefic due to the fact the malefic is not naturally analogous with good fortune. Saturn brings about Saturn-like honors or restricted honors in the 10th if well placed.

A decent example, is Arthur Ashe. Based on essential dignity alone, his chart has little going for it. Venus is in her fall. Mars is in detriment. There are no planets in domicile or exaltation. But The Sun is near the MC, peregrine in Cancer, but not afflicted by the malefics. Furthermore the Sun is in mutual reception with Jupiter (domicile - exaltation), also in the 10th and also has an analogy with honors and preferment. The Moon, lady of the MC is in the first (honors coming to the native) and in tight aspect with the Sun - a square indicating overcoming of obstacles en route to honors.

Saturn is in Gemini, he is in the triplicity ruler of air in this chart, and is trine the MC ruler. Saturn is not afflicted and is a day planet above the earth in a day chart (NOTE: Although Morin would have Saturn as the day ruler of air, I'm not sure he considered Saturn a day planet. I'd have to check). Saturn is swift in motion, oriental of the Sun occidental of the Moon and so his celestial state is good. He has no strong analogy with the 9th house, but Ashe was the author of an important sports history reference, and may have accomplished more if his life wasn't cut short.

Arthur Ashe
12:55 PM EWT + 4 hrs
Richmond, Virginia USA
11 Libra 28 rises

Tom

Hi Johannes, Tom

Thank you for your answers.

I Think Tom is right in saying that, for Morin, the principle of analogy is more important. This answers Johannes's objection : a malefic in a good house, not dignified, can bring good.

Morin says that the elemental quality of the planet, which results in its being classified as benefic or malefic, is less important than its own influence. This is in Jean Hi?roz, "l'Astrologie selon J.-B. Morin de Villefranche", p. 61-62. What he means by "own influence" is certainly its determinations : its essential dignity, its aspects and its accidental dignity.

I suppose one has to weigh all these factors, giving the preference to the analogy, if any.

My question was motivated by the following paragraph from Astrologica Gallica, book 22, translated by J. Holden, p 112 :

If a planet that is significator of good is strong and its ruler is weak, the thing will go well in the beginning and will bring hope, but it will not be able to be brought to perfection. But if the significator is weak and the ruler is strong, then the thing will seem difficult in the beginning, but finally it will easily be brought to perfection. But if the significator is strong and the ruler is strong, the thing will move forward easily and outstandingly from beginning to end ; and it will be a great effect. But if both of them are weak, the thing can in no way be accomplished or begun; and this must be understood of radical positions as well as of directions of the significator in which consideration will still have to be given to the strength or weakness of the promittor according to Article 2 above. The same should be judged about a cusp as significator; and the same from a similar judgment in the case of an evil significator.

/

I found it difficult to apply this to a malefic planet, but I see now that it is first necessary to determine if the significator is of good or of evil, whatever its natural quality.

Regards

This answers Johannes's objection : a malefic in a good house, not dignified, can bring good.

This may or may not be an accurate description of Morin's views.
I cannot debate the ins and outs of Morin's perspective like Tom who is a specialist in that area. However, I cannot accept what you are stating is mainstream traditional astrology. Lets not forget Morin was quite idiosyncratic on a number of points! Historically, he stands at the end of the traditional era and took issue with many fundamental concepts in medieval astrology.

I suppose it depends what you count as a 'good house'. A good house for a malefic without any essential dignity and especially if debiliated by dignity is probably a cadent house where it can do less harm! A malefic in a strong angular house is more powerful but not more benefic because of this power. In fact it can be very damaging.

In a horary or electional chart the last thing you want to see is an angular malefic without essential dignity!

There are of course many mitigations. The condition of its dispositor, a positive planetary phase, sect, aspects to benefics, or benefic fixed stars etc. Still, I cannot see how this changes an essentially malefic planet lacking dignity into a benefic. They just lessen its ability to cause damage. Having a malefic lacking any dignity in a powerful house simply increases its potential to cause harm unless there are other mitigations to this.

In essence I agree with Johannes that essential dignity by sign describes how a planet expresses its basic nature for good or ill. Accidental dignity , such as house placement is about how powerfully it will be able to express that fundamental nature.

At least thats the normal viewpoint. However, its interesting whether the relationship to the Sun by sect or phase can actually alter the nature of a planet. Reading some hellenistic sources sect appears to fundamentally alter the way a malefic expresses itself due to its being in or out of planetary sect. Saturn is certainly less malefic in influence in a day chart and in its oriental phase to the Sun. However, I dont think house placement ever changes the malefic nature of a planet.

Robert Schmidt has suggested that rather than dividing significators into essential and accidental dignity the hellenistic astrologers looked at three basic considerations:

Zodiacal -including dignities, aspects, fixed stars etc

Heliacal-relationship to sun ie planetary phase and sect

Mundane-relation to the earth ie houses


Mark

I suppose it depends what you count as a 'good house'.

Yes, more astrological mud to wade through. This is from the '112 Rules' based on Morin's Book XXI at Robert Corre's site? [ http://www.forumonastrology.com/newmain.html ] :

26. Any planet in favorable zodiacal state is considered to be benefic, in whatever house it is.
Nevertheless, Saturn and Mars, even in good zodiacal state, but in an unfortunate house (VIII and XII and partially VII) produce pernicious effects.
On the other hand, any planet in unfavorable zodiacal state, in whatever house, acts as a malefic. this latter circumstance accentuates further the harmful power of planets which are naturally malefic.
Any planet in mediocre zodiacal state has an influence intermediate between that of a benefic and a malefic.

Only the 8th and 12th ? and sometimes 7th ? houses are named as unfortunate. In #41-43 the 8th and 12th are again listed as unfortunate. Where's the 6th? Here's # 35:

A planet which is benefic by nature and zodiacal state, in I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, and XI (which are the houses called fortunate) realizes the advantages indicated by the house in which it is posited.

The 6th as a fortunate house? Such contradictions make a person want to scream in anguish. The 12th, the joy of malefic Saturn, is unfortunate; the 6th , the joy of malefic Mars, is fortunate.

Lets not forget Morin was quite idiosyncratic on a number of points! Historically, he stands at the end of the traditional era and took issue with many fundamental concepts in medieval astrology.

Yes, I think Morin should probably be avoided until one is well established with a good foundation.

Mark wrote

This may or may not be an accurate description of Morin's views.
I cannot debate the ins and outs of Morin's perspective like Tom who is a specialist in that area. However, I cannot accept what you are stating is mainstream traditional astrology. Lets not forget Morin was quite idiosyncratic on a number of points! Historically, he stands at the end of the traditional era and took issue with many fundamental concepts in medieval astrology.

Morin is not the only one who thinks like this. This is a quotation from Dr. J. LeelLehman, The Book of Rulerships, p. 7 :

There is a rule that goes back at least as early as Bonatus (actually Guido Bonatti, thirteenth century) to the effect that a malefic (read Saturn or Mars) is less malefic if it is dignified (Aphorism 41). Henry Coley translated it as "If an Infortune, being Significator, be in his own House or Exaltation, or in his own Terms or Triplicity, or in Angles or Succedent Houses; for by all these means he is fortified, and shall be counted strong as a Fortune."

From this quotation, it seems that perhaps for Guido Bonatti, and at least for Coley, if a malefic is in an angular or succedent house, this is enough for it to give good results. Of course, if the malefic is also in fall, one can imagine the good effects will be weak.

A couple of points here on Morin, then I'll get to the topic.

Morin is a traditional astrologer if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than he cannot be considered in the Liz Greene camp. Putting aside his own claims a bit, Morin did reject quite a bit of what was considered acceptable astrology and reworked it, but he did not, a la moderns, simply make things up or reject things because they were old. He had his prejudices, no doubt about that, but unlike many of his predecessors and descendants he gave reasons for his beliefs. If the reader doesn't want to accept those reasons, fine. But there is far more to him than "the ancients said so" school of thinking.

If you want to get philosophical about all this, Morin is closer to Aristotle and the rest of astrology is closer to Plato. Morin was a natural philosopher and if something in astrology didn't correspond to things in nature they were not valid. He did allow for the part of fortune however. For a detailed discussion of which astrologers in the past clung to Plato and which ones clung to Aristotle I recommend Nicholas Campion's new work: The History of Western Astrology Vol II.

Morin did see himself as a reformer which is different than many of his contemporaries and near contemporaries who considered themselves restorers of astrology's golden age past that had been obfuscated by scoundrels and wastrels and impostors. That this golden age probably never existed is problematic for everyone except Morin who thought he was the only one who got it right.

I agree with Kirk that Morin is not to be attempted unless one has a good foundation in traditional astrology. I wold only add that it would be OK to attempt Morin with no background in astrology for then there would be no previously learned notions to be abandoned. This might be the easiest way. Robert Corre of Forum on Astrology teaches Morin as was understood and taught by Zoltan Mason (Corres' teacher) which is why the outer planets are incorporated into the system. Unlike many of his modern counterparts, Corre does not teach that the chart begins and ends with the three outer planets.

There are two translations of Book 21 of Astrologia Gallica. One commissioned by Mason from a French translation and one directly from the Latin done by Richard Baldwin. What follows is from the Baldwin translation, but I don't think this varies much from the French translated by Lucy Little.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing because you'll catch on to his point pretty quickly once you see where it is going. This begins on page 42 of the Baldwin translation. It is Section II Chapter 2 and is titled "One planet in a House" for those who may wish to consult the Little translation.

The planet's nature is the first thing to be considered, then its celestial state, and last its determinations other than by location.

A planet's nature is self explanatory. Jupiter expands; Saturn restricts. Venus represents love - that sort of thing. "Celestial state" is the condition of the planet including essential dignity, the condition of the planet that rules it, aspects to the planet, and house position, etc. Morin did not consider the 6th to be as troublesome as the 8th and 12th and sometimes the 7th, but that takes us elsewhere and we need another thread to discuss it. But celestial state determines the effectiveness of a planet. The stronger the planet the more effective it will be in bringing about its potential in the house in which he is located. Location takes priority over rulership in his view. Once the astrologer determines what the planet means in a house, then he goes and ties that in with the house or houses the planet rules.

Beginning on page 44 he breaks down this system in an orderly fashion:

In general a benefic planet in good celestial state located in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, or eleventh house (which are said to be fortunate houses in that they represent desirable things) grants the good things of that house and the results will be real, abundant, lasting and unattended by difficulties. ...

However a benefic in a fortunate house in a state which is adverse by sign or through aspect either grants nothing or grants things attended by difficulties or through evil means or which are at best scanty, spurious, unreliable or of little use.

A benefic in an intermediate state grants more than if it were in an adverse state but with respect to quality, quantity, stability, and duration it will act only with moderate results.

So he's divided benefics into good, mediocre, and poor celestial state. Put them in a good house and we get good, mediocre or poor results depending on the condition of the planet and they will manifest in the area of life that the planet occupies. Next he does the same with malefics.

On the other hand a malefic in an adverse celestial state but in a good house, such as the tenth, will not grant the good of that house -- the honor or prestige -- but rather will prevent that these should come about; or if somehow they do take place, there will be misfortunes, especially through Saturn which is contrary by nature to honors.

The classic examples here are Hitler's Saturn in Leo in the 10th resulting in the destruction of Germany after he was elevated, and JFK's Saturn in Cancer in 10 that resulted in his death after being elected President of the US.

But a malefic in good state and in a favorable house such as the tenth will cause honors and prestige, especially if in its exaltation (because exaltation, among the other possible dignities of a planet is the one most analogous to honors) and not squared or opposed or in some adverse relation to the Sun or Moon, as the luminaries are particularly analogous to honors. ... However, a malefic even in a good state always grants things attended by imperfections or though evil methods or in difficult ways, or with some accompanying misfortune, because the malefic nature of the planet through which it is more prone to evil than to good. Whence it can be said that malefics in good celestial state in the fortunate houses are like a dissonance in music that ha been resolved to produce a consonance.

Finally a malefic in an intermediate state neither grants nor takes away anything but only prevents the good from taking place.

So again he divides the malefics in to good, mediocre and poor and explains how each functions in good and bad houses.

The last thing he touches on is benefics in good shape but poor houses.

A benefic in good celestial state in the unfortunate houses - the eighth and twelfth - prevents or mitigates the evil of those houses and this is also true of the 7th which through the meaning of litigations and open enemies attributed to it is sometimes evil ... So Jupiter in the twelfth - the house of illnesses - makes the native subject to few diseases and even those will be easy to cure ...

It would probably be best for an interested to student to list the possibilities in a more logical order and then the potentials according to Morin to fully grasp this. Benefics in good state good house and bad house. Maelfics in good state in good house bad house and so on.

What we get for our efforts is precision. The more detail we put into our delineation the more precise our predictions will be, or at least that's the theory. Morin also has rules for delineating a house that has more than one planet within its boundaries. As a tease: we give priority to the planet closest to the cusp unless the ruler occupies the house in the same sign as the cusp.

Again we go to JFK's chart. Mars is in Taurus on the 8th cusp (Placidus) and gets priority for that house. This is a strong indication of a violent death, and a public one as Mars is trine the Moon in the 11th. The Sun, which also has an analogy with honors is also in the 8th house. His will be a violent death but accompanied by honors. This is easy with hindsight, but I would argue that it is predictable.

For Morin malefics always retained their malefic nature even when producing good. The same is true in reverse for benefics.

In closing, I don't think we can cherry pick Morin like we can other older astrologers and as Lilly did. We either have to accept him or reject him. He isn't always right, of course, no one is, but he does have a system and when we wander from it while trying to hold on to parts, we can easily get lost. Better to stick with him from beginning to end.

Tom

I'm reading through Sahl's 50 Precepts now, and many of his delineations of the malefics aren't so different.

Strange, cos I'm sure Morin would have rejected him out of hand! But in that regard, Morin doesn't sound all that far off from the rest of the tradition (using the word advisedly there).

Martine wrote: I Think Tom is right in saying that, for Morin, the principle of analogy is more important. This answers Johannes's objection : a malefic in a good house, not dignified, can bring good.

Hi Martine,

this sentence is not correct after all writings of Morin. You can read it in the quote Tom gave:

Any analogy between the planet's nature and the house's accidental meanings should be well noted. For the Sun in the 10th shows preferment though its very nature, since it bears analogy to and is therefore in natural agreement with this. on the other hand Saturn by nature denies preferment for the contrary reason. However this is by nature, for accidentally the Sun in the tenth would deny preferment if in an adverse celestial state such as exile, peregrine, and squared or opposed by the malefics, or also -- which would make things worse -- its ruler were adversely placed in addition. Or if it granted something because of its location in the tenth and its analogy the result would be attended by difficulties, hindrances and misfortunes, which would be the greater the more afflicted the condition of the Sun. On the other hand, Saturn in the tenth could accidentally bring honors and preferment if it were in the its own sign, or in exaltation, oriental to the Sun, moving rapidly in forward motion, and trine the Moon, Jupiter, or Venus. - Book 21 page 43 Baldwin translation

Morin says that the malefic Saturn even in the good tenth house can bring good only when he is in his essential dignities (own sign or exaltation) plus accidental dignities (oriental and in rapid forward motion and in trine to Moon, Jupiter or Venus)!

Mark, when you write:

In essence I agree with Johannes that essential dignity by sign describes how a planet expresses its basic nature for good or ill. Accidental dignity , such as house placement is about how powerfully it will be able to express that fundamental nature.

At least thats the normal viewpoint.

then this is not only the normal viewpoint but that of Morin too as you can read in all the quotes Tom gave us.

Thank you for that, Tom!

Johannes

Hi Tom

Thank you for this clarification about Morin. This is most useful.

I have Mars in Libra in 1st, 7? from the ascendant. I did have some accidents to the head, especially one between 7 and 8 years old, to the head, with great danger to life, but I came out of it with only a skin wound and, of course, shock. My health is good and since I am now old enough to be retired, I have had time to experience it. From this I think that being angular has not made this Mars in detriment stronger for giving bad effects, but on the contrary, less malefic. Mars is also in sect for a night birth and oriental to the Sun.

Regards