View Single Post
Minderwiz's Avatar
Minderwiz  Minderwiz is offline
Student of Astrology
Join Date: 20 Apr 2002
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 7,888

Originally Posted by Ronia View Post
I'm also not very sure I see these assessments as playing out as events in life but may be this will change at later stages. I can see how Saturn performs strongly but he's not performing beneficially all the time, it depends on the house he's transiting through, as I wrote. Same with Jupiter, he's not weak, he does bring events and there have been both positive and negative (when he turns retro by transit). So, the movement seems to be important,
There's a distinction here between the basic or preliminary analysis and seeing how (if at all) the planet pans out in your life. If this was simply an Introduction to modern Astrology I'd be saying something like - 'Saturn in Leo in your eighth house' and you'd be reasonably happy with that. You would still want to know how Saturn pans out buit you'd have some idea of where it is. At a more advance level I'd have picked up on it's aspects and therefore how it connects with other areas of your chart and possibly point out whether it was direct or retrograde. You'd have some idea of how it was expected to affect your life, but how it pans out would still be the clincher.

A post on position for a modern approach is quite brief because most people coming to Astrology soon pick up the idea of the signs and the houses and after a bit the aspects. But for Hellenisitic Astrology there are significant differences from modern practice. Factors are considered which many modern astrologers just would not use. That's why I've tended to labour what should be (to a Hellenistic Astrologer) a simple preliminary step. And of course it's new to me, so I'm having to try and apply a system which I'm not used to and certainly, at this stage, don't fully understand.

So treat what we've been doing as the equivalent of saying 'Saturn in Leo in the eighth'

Originally Posted by Ronia
I was also wondering about the aspects. For example, are Mars and Moon considered conjunct despite the fact that one is in the beginning, the other - at the end of a sign? And one is below, the other above the horyzon? How about Moon-Sun, she is in sign trine to the Sun but applies for a degree square, yet the square will be perfected in another sign which coincidentally is the Sun's sign while the Moon is applying form her own sign? Did the ancients considered the trine by sign or the sqaure by degree though in another sign?
This is an excellent question because it really makes me think about what I have learned up to now and what I still need to find out. Firstly the conjunction of Mars and Moon is by sign only. Mars and the Moon are 'co-present', they share the same sign, but this is the weakest form of conjunction. From Medieval times, this connection fell out of use and the degree based conjunction became the criteria. As your Horizon (Ascendant/Descendant line) runs approximately through the middle of Cancer, the Moon happens to be above the horizon (is setting) whereas Mars is below the horizon (has already set). In a quadrant house system Mars would be in the sixth house.

The relationship to the Sun is a little bit more tricky. As I see it at the moment, the initial appraisal would be that as Moon is in Cancer and the Sun is Scorpio, the sign relationship is a trine but not one that is degree based. That's still an important point to make because the Sun and the Moon both share the properties of being in a Water sign, they have something in common. Moreover as Cancer is earlier in the zodiac than Scorpio, the Moon is making a right sided trine to Sun and is therefore in a situation where she influences the Sun (for the better).

The applying out of sign square is more problematic. In some traditional astrological practices it just would not be recognised as they would see the square ending at a sign boundary. In modern Astrology the trine would probably be ignored and the square would be what is considered. Now it does appear that Hellenistic Astrologers let their degre base aspects cross sign boundaries (usually to a tight orb of 3 degrees) but I'm really not sure what they would conclude in this particular case. It's something I'll have to research. There's an additional point in that for the 'energy test' of application, the Moon is allowed an orb of 13 degrees and I'm not sure if that orb would be allowed for simply appraising the configuration here. If it is only confined to 3 degrees the square would lapse. Delphic Oracle is showing the aspect as a trine.

Originally Posted by Ronia
P.S. By the way, the idea of a planet being a "malefic" or "benefic" per se is a bit foreign to me. For example, I do like Saturn as an Ascendant ruler because he brings not only physical but also emotional and psychological strength and persistence which may fix some weakness in the chart, IMHO. And may be because I have such ideas, I find it more difficult to relate to the new info now, as the ancient astrologers were more "black and white" in their vision, or at least I see them as such. At the same time Venus may bring unrequited love to someone constantly, is she a benefic in this case? I looked at a chart of a friend of mine some time ago and such a beautiful Libra Venus, Ascendant ruler on top of that, nicely aspected, has been doing precisely this. Not very beneficial for the querent.
The terms 'benefic' and 'malefic' are sadly ones that don't work well to modern ears, as 2,000 years of Christianity has equated malefic with 'evil', especially in the English language. However when a French person says j'ai mal a la tete' they don't mean that they have evil thoughts or the devil is possesing their head - the mean they have a headache. The term loses many of those overtones. You might be happier with 'positive' and 'negative' or simply 'good' and 'bad' in the sense of something that works in your favour or makes you happy, compared with something that doesn't work in your favour or make you happy - something along the lines of good and bad weather.

We also have to distinguish between intrinsic nature and how that might be modified. Saturn's intrinsic nature may be to 'exclude' or 'reject', which is a rather negative approach but that can be modified. In a day chart (like yours) Saturn is not so inclinded to 'exclude' or 'reject' as simply a gut reaction. Saturn in Aquarius or Libra, or Capricorn is likely to bring a positive spin to 'exclusion' or 'rejection'. For example knowing which herbs are poisonous and therefore need to be rejected can be of great benefit when using herbal medicine (as the Greeks and Romans tended to do). So Saturn well placed can be a force for good, though this may not stop the initial impulse being to exclude or reject. Like you I have a prominent Saturn in Leo (in my first by whole sign houses and conjunct my Ascendant in a quadrant system) I often find my first impulse is to 'reject' or 'exclude' actions, but on reflection I realise that I should make the effort. It's probably harder for me because Saturn is my out of sect malefic and he's in the first house in conjunction with Mars (the malefic of sect) So don't assume that malefics must always be bad and benefics always must be good. There are times when they may well play almost the opposite role but that is case specific, rather than a general rule. Your Venus example being a good case in point.

Actually as I read through the texts Saturn there are a lot of examples of where he is positive and Venus is negative in a praticular chart or configuration. So no, it's not all black and white, despite the tendency of Hellenisitc Astrologers to use extreme examples.
Top   #43