Hi
I was intriegued to read in one of STJ's posts in the 'Should I move to Lahore...' thread that Saturn lost its maleficity because it's in rx motion.
Simply following Lilly's table, I'd have thought that it'd increase the degree of maleficity, with -5 points.
On the other hand, a Rx planet may indeed lack power to act and do mischief.
STJ cited Sue Ward for his referrence. Could anyone point me to releveant referrences on this?
Thanks

Gem---

Here is the link to the article. Last few paragraphs are important. If i have made a mistake in my understanding i would be happy if some one corrects me.

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/a ... lefics.htm

Thanks STJ, for the link.

(STJ giving vent to fancy)

My opinion would be based on Palmistry (William George Benham) and David Copperfield by Charles Dickens.

A true Saturnian person hasnt got best physical features. Being anon-aggressive he works best in secret. If he is the murderer. He is the poisoner.

Uriah Heep (a character in David Copperfield) was a true saturnian and he was the most insincere and scheming fellow.

So my take is that since 12th (a cadent) house is the house of joy of Saturn. A malefic Saturn in cadent house should be more dangerous. Afterall if Saturn wants to succede in his evil intentions. He must not be in lime light or Noticed.

STJ
Just after I edited my post you kindly replied. For other people reading this, I asked in my deleted post, which of the Saturn was more malefic, --Saturn in a cadent house or in an angular house. I thought I'd think about it more myself before asking or should re-read the S Ward article.

So I haven't thought about this clearly yet but right now I think an angular malefic Saturn(as we have now, Rx and in Leo) would be more dagerous as it has the power to act and if being in a house of joy, ie 12th, would encourage better? qualities of Saturn or moderate its maleficity. In any case, the expressions of planets in a cadent house aren't obvious and rather hidden and weak.

I apologise for my habit of thinking out loud online and then immediately deleting my posts and confusing people(yes I've done it many times)

STJ
I loved your reasoning. What you said also makes sense.

Hi STJ,

I think you have misunderstood. This is the relevant comment from the end of the article by Sue Ward:

Thus the malefics become more malefic, not less when they are undignified or weak, and become more obstructive, damaging and significant of loss.

There are several references in Christian Astrology testifying to the argument that weakness does not mean lack of power. For example, "A Planet Peregrine, viz. having no essentiall Dignities where he is, he is malicious beyond expression;". Bonatti is clear, too, "?if an Infortune, whether he be Significator or not, be Peregrine; that is, not in any of his Dignities, for then his malice is increased; but, when in his Dignities it somewhat abates it;?".

There is, however, a condition which does lead to a lack of power, explained in Bonatti?s 43rd Consideration: "A Planet Retrograde and Combust, has no strength in signification. The Fortunes when Combust and under the sun?s beams, signify none or very little good; and the Infortunes in like case have little or no virtue to signify ill."

I believe it is the last comment that leads you to assume that Sue Ward suggests that Saturn loses its malevolency when retrograde. I don?t believe that is her argument at all, because the main focus of her article is to explain that malefics do not lose power when afflicted or lacking dignity, but that they become more malefic in their expression (as in the first comment above).

The Bonnatti reference to a planet losing strength in signification when ?retrograde and combust? is much more pertinent to the effect of combustion than retrogradation. Unless the planet is combust, you would not normally assume a loss of strength in signification for a retrograde planet. This would be seen as a debility which would incline it towards a more malefic expression, as the other parts of Sue Ward's quote quote emphasise. By the word 'weak' I believe that Sue is referring to weakness of dignity, not weakness of accidental dignity, such as cadency, which suggests a weak expression of effect.

Hope this helps
Best wishes with your new studies!
Deb

Hi Deb!

I stand corrected. I have assumed the statement made by Guidano Bonatus as if it has been made by Sue. Furthermore, i have misread the consideration of Guidano. It is -Retrograde and Combustion- and NOT -Retrograde or Combustion. So, i think that the only way a malefic is tamed into a Gentleman is by Aphorism number 4 of Hermes.

Since i am student, and reading on my own. I have maintained a Register in which i am hand drawing the charts and recording my observations in detail alongwith ample space for feed back.

Thanks for the clarification.