Skyscript Astrology Forum

I've been trying to work a little with fixed stars lately, and to narrow the use of these I've been paying attention to those that have a higher magnitude (to which Deb's list of the 20 brightest stars helped a lot).

What is complicated about these (despite declination factors / relation to the ecliptic) is that generally those that have greater brilliance are also considered mainly benefical (with a few exceptions, such as Sirius, Capella and Acrux).

The malefic ones have lower magnitudes (2.0 and so on) and that's one of the reasons why they are considered malefic (alongside the constelation they come from) and I find it important to look at malefic stars to achieve a complete work. I'd like someone with this knowledge to share which stars (maybe 10 or so) are considered very malefic and that have vast historical basis for such cassification (I know Algol, Vindemiatrix, Pleiades, but that's about it). Thanks in advance.

Hi Paulo

I could not possibly compile a list of the top ten favorite malefic stars of all time without including Scheat (sunk the Titanic), Alphard (good for poisons) and Algorab (cursed to hell for his malicious prattle).

I know that they are not the brightest, and I know that Alphard is off the ecliptic, but I don't care - I love/loathe them anyway.

Best wishes
Deb

Hello PFN,

As a generalization bright first magnitude stars are more positive and certainly powerful in influence overall. However, when we look at the issue in more detail its not that straightfoward. Its certainly not the case that all 2nd magnitude stars are malefic. For example the star Nunki, in the constellation of Sagittarius, Alpheratz in the constellation of Andromeda (formerly Pegasus), or El Nath in the constellation of Taurus (formerly Auriga) all have a benefic reputation.

Several factors can contribute to a point being seen as malefic traditionally.

Firstly, stemming from Ptolemy (and probably the Babylonians) the colour of a star linked to planets. Stars of the nature of Mars while not necessarily malefic can manifest in this way when poorly placed e.g. Pollux, Aldebaran etc. Especially, When the nature of a planet conflicts with the nature of a star the combination may be uncomfortable. For example a highly Martian star like Pollux may not combine well with Saturn or the Moon. Equally, where a planet is debilitated natally these stars are likely to reinforce that tendency in a sometimes violent or impulsive way. Traditionally, though a majority of the most difficult stars have the nature of Mars-Saturn eg Algorab, Sheratan, Acrab, Unukalhai (Cor Serpentis) etc. These are real 'nasties' traditionally.

Take a look a Deb's summary of the 20 brightest stars which lists planetary associations.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/20stars.html

Secondly, the location of a star within a constellation can indicate its malefic associations in terms of the mythology. The most famous example is Algol, the severed head of the Gorgon. However, there are numerous others. For example, the star Sheratan in the left horn of the Ram. Its made even more malefic by its Mars-Saturn association. Another example, is the star Acrab (called Graffias by Robson) which in the the forehead of the Scorpion and of the nature of Mars and Saturn.

Thirdly, while strength and power can be conveyed by bright stars the other end of the spectrum is star clusters and Nebula. From ancient times these have been given a lot of attention astrologically as weakening points. While medieval texts often talk about these being linked directly to the blindness their influence can be seen as generally malefic and weakening. Examples include Praesepe in the constellation of Cancer, Facies in the constellation of Sagittarius, Acumen and Aculeus in the constellation of Scorpio etc. These points often have the planetary nature of Mars and the Moon.

Fourthly, stars or Nebula close to the ecliptic are seen as more influential. All the examples I have listed above (excluding Algol ,Unukalhai and Alpheratz) are very close to the ecliptic and therefore more powerful in influence.

Lastly, I try to find associations from other cultures such as Babylonia, Ancient Egypt, India, and China. In the case of fixed stars this can add depth to our understanding beyond just the Greek mythology.

I haven't got time to go into more detail here but I will send you more information from a talk I gave earlier this year. I should state that one can look at traditionally malefic stars in a more psychological and in a less literal or fatalistic way. Especially in natal work.

Regards

Mark

Hello Deb,

When you said that Scheat "sank" Titanic, are referring to the start of maiden voyage or at the time of the sinking itself?

Thank you!

Hello PFN,

There are also references that variable stars i.e. stars with variable magnitude/brightness (they get brighter and dimmer within the span of human's lifetime of course!) are associated with evil influence e.g. the famous Algol. Actually the stars do not vary their brightness (absolute magnitude), they get dimmer or brighter depending on their phase of existence (or they get very bright duing supernova or when they turn into neutron stars). The universe is actually filled with binary stars (Algol is one of them). Due to the distance, both stars are seen as one star so when both are in line of sight they get brigther, when only one of them is in the line of sight, they get dimmer (as they revolve around each other with a common center of gravity). Our sun is the few odd ones that is not a binary star. Sometime a binary star is composed not of 2 stars but a star and a black hole. The period of revolution of the binary stars around each other determines the rate of variation in the apparent brightness/magnitude.

Hi AJ

When you said that Scheat "sank" Titanic, are referring to the start of maiden voyage or at the time of the sinking itself?

Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. I was thinking of the conjunction of Mars and Scheat in the launch chart for the Titanic - the chart is online here:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/His ... nic_Launch

Scheat is one of the first malefic stars that I learned about, mainly because I was asked to study that chart as a student, so for some reason I was thinking that everyone just knew this, which was silly of me.

Brady's list of most difficult stars includes Facies, Capulus, Algol, Menkar and Zosma.
And Alphard for sure is up there with the 'bad boys'.

: ) Helle

Paulo

I started looking at the delineation of evil last year with a sample of American Spree Killers. What I noticed in the delineation of manners given by Montulmo (On the Judgment of Nativities Part 2, Project Hindsight Latin Track Vol XII) were the phrases 'shedder of blood' and 'slayer of men' reserved for three specific planetary combinations:

Saturn-Mars (pp. 58/59)
Mercury-Mars (pp. 65/66)
Mars (pp. 64-65)

These planetary descriptors for manners are defined as the rulers/al-mubtazz of Moon and Mercury. Montulmo also says not to ignore the rulers/al-mubtazz of the Ascendant when considering manners.

This approach yielded good results, but it seemed to me that not only would this condition have to hold (e.g., rulers/al-mubtazz of Moon, Mercury, Ascendant either Saturn-Mars, Mercury-Mars, or Mars) but that a malefic fixed star needs to contact these significators for manners (or another key chart point such as the luminaries or Ascendant degree). I have found many examples of people with Saturn-Mars, Mercury-Mars, or Mars as significators of manners who had problems and difficult personalities but were not murderers. Addition of malefic stars seems required to create evil behavior.

Agreeing with Mark's point about looking at the planetary assignments given to fixed stars, I looked for fixed stars whose nature was Saturn-Mars, Mercury-Mars, or Mars. I also considered the story/symbolism of the constellation the stars appeared in. So here is my trial list of malefic fixed stars:

Aries: Hamal (Mars/Saturn); Sheratan (Mars/Saturn)

Cancer: Acubens (Saturn/Mercury); Asellus Borealis (Mars/Sun); Asellus Australis (Mars/Sun)

Canis Minor: Procyon (Mercury/Mars)

Cetus: Deneb Kaitos (Saturn); Menkar (Saturn)

Corvus: Algorab (Saturn/Mars)

Gemini: Pollux (Mars)

Libra: Zuben Elengenubi/Southern Scale (Saturn/Mars)

Orion: Betelgeuse (Mars/Mercury); Bellatrix (Mars/Mercury)

Pegasus: Scheat (Mercury/Mars); Markab (Mars/Mercury), Algenib (Mars/Mercury)

Perseus: Algol (Saturn/Mars)

Sagittarius: Facies (Mars)

Scorpio: Dschubba (Mars/Saturn); Acrab (Mars/Saturn); Antares (Mars/Jupiter); Lesath (Mars/Mercury); Shuala (Mars/Mercury)

Serpens: Unukalhi (Saturn/Mars)
Ursa Major: Dubhe (Mars); Alkaid (Mars/Saturn)

While stars such as Algol certainly met expectations for decapitations, strangulations, and gore, there were some other stars that I wasn't familiar with that faired just as bad. Stars in Cetus, the sea monster, strongly populated my sample.

I would be curious as to other opinions on this list. Also if there are any corrections on planetary assignments to stars. I culled these from a variety of lists, some of which are inconsistent.

Finally, I used a 2 degree orb in longitude when considering fixed stars. I also ran my sample through Bernadette Brady's fixed star program but came up with so many 'hits' that I couldn't make any sense of it.

Thank you all for such fine answers! Very informative indeed.

I'll take note of these stars cited by Deb and Dr. H and the conceptual points laid by Mark and Astrojin are very welcome (I never knew much about binary systems with stars/blackholes).

Dr. H, about Menkar, I think it's longitude almost coincides with another star, a benefic one, Almach. Almach belongs to Andromeda, as Menkar belongs to Cetus. I find that an interesting thing to take notice, since them both are tied to the same myth.

RegulusAstrology wrote:Paulo

I started looking at the delineation of evil last year with a sample of American Spree Killers. What I noticed in the delineation of manners given by Montulmo (On the Judgment of Nativities Part 2, Project Hindsight Latin Track Vol XII) were the phrases 'shedder of blood' and 'slayer of men' reserved for three specific planetary combinations:

Saturn-Mars (pp. 58/59)
Mercury-Mars (pp. 65/66)
Mars (pp. 64-65)

These planetary descriptors for manners are defined as the rulers/al-mubtazz of Moon and Mercury. Montulmo also says not to ignore the rulers/al-mubtazz of the Ascendant when considering manners.

This approach yielded good results, but it seemed to me that not only would this condition have to hold (e.g., rulers/al-mubtazz of Moon, Mercury, Ascendant either Saturn-Mars, Mercury-Mars, or Mars) but that a malefic fixed star needs to contact these significators for manners (or another key chart point such as the luminaries or Ascendant degree).....
I would be curious as to other opinions on this list.

I don't exactly agree with you, because there is a limit to what astrology can do, so obviously not all those who has Mars/Saturn has significator for the soul, are killers and murderers, this I would take for granted.

Ptolemy does not mentions stars or the ruler of the Ascendant, but many authors in commenting this part of Quadripartite, mention them. For example Argoli. Now I don't remember Giuntini, but I would bet he does.

The stars are copied from a book to another, it's always the same list, I translated Stade and Cardano one, but in whatever Renaissance text you will find.
I prefer those to Robson book to be honest.

margherita

margherita wrote:
I don't exactly agree with you, because there is a limit to what astrology can do, so obviously not all those who has Mars/Saturn has significator for the soul, are killers and murderers, this I would take for granted.

margherita

Think we have no difference of opinion, just in words. I agree that not all those who have Mars/Saturn as significators for soul are killers/murderers. Fixed stars whose nature is Mars/Saturn, Mercury/Mars, or Mars conjunct the same significators of manners make the native more evil, but there are other factors which I didn't mention which are also important. One is the Moon's application to a planet in or ruling the 12th house of evil spirit. Another is if the Ruler of the Chart is a debilitated malefic.

Killers/murderers are a very small part of the population so we should expect an unusual and rare combination of configurations to model that level of evil behavior.

I agree that not all those who have Mars/Saturn as significators for soul are killers/murderers.

As someone with Moon in Scorpio and Mercury in Capricorn I am very relieved to hear this. Although considering the small number of murderers out there and the likelihood of this kind of combination cropping up I would prefer to hear a concession that the vast majority of people with this combination are not killers!

Mark
Ps In any case I have hidden the bodies really well.