Besieged and aided planets

tripleooo

Well-known member
If Saturn were FORTIFIED by Jupiter and Venus, then Saturn's benefic qualities would come to the fore (all other factors being equal) However, if both Venus and Jupiter were detrimented, ie turned into functional malefics, then they would in fact BESIEGE Saturn and would act to enhance Saturn's malefic qualities; the term besiege (as used by the oldtime authors) indicates malefic influences-they used the term FORTIFY for benefic containment (the word-containment-is used in Modernist astrology for placement of a planet, Lot, lunar Node or specific degree, between 2 other planets, one on each side)

If Venus and Jupiter turn into functional malefics when in detriment, then Mars and Saturn turn into functional benefics if also in detriment? I honestly don't understand why Venus and Jupiter would become malefic all of a sudden even under such conditions. Jupiter is in detriment in Mercury's domicile, but Mercury isn't a malefic planet, nor Gemini or Virgo are "evil" signs.
 

david starling

Well-known member
If Venus and Jupiter turn into functional malefics when in detriment, then Mars and Saturn turn into functional benefics if also in detriment? I honestly don't understand why Venus and Jupiter would become malefic all of a sudden even under such conditions. Jupiter is in detriment in Mercury's domicile, but Mercury isn't a malefic planet, nor Gemini or Virgo are "evil" signs.

Mercury has a dual nature, and Traditionally, can function as either a Benefic or a Malefic, depending on the circumstances.
 

tripleooo

Well-known member
Mercury has a dual nature, and Traditionally, can function as either a Benefic or a Malefic, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, I understand that. However, in itself Mercury is neither benefic nor malefic. Jupiter won’t get a negative coloring just by being in Mercury’s domicile.

I've also found out that terms "functional benefics" and "functional malefics" are used in Vedic astrology, but their approach to it is different from dr. farr described. Basically the lords of the 6th, 8th and 12th houses are functional malefics, even if they are Venus or Jupiter. The lords of angular and fire houses (1st, 5th and 9th), on the other hand, are functional benefics. Although it's Vedic astrology, this method makes sense to me and I think could be applied to Western astrology as well.
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
To further expand on Dr. Farr's point, it would also depend on the chart's Asc.
For instance, for a Virgo Asc., Saturn will act as a functional benefic, whilst Jupiter will act as a functional malefic, since Sagittarius forms a square to the sign of Virgo. Hence, if Mercury were conjoined by Jupiter, it would enhance the devious side of Mercury. I am sure Dr. Farr can explain this better.
 

tripleooo

Well-known member
To further expand on Dr. Farr's point, it would also depend on the chart's Asc.
For instance, for a Virgo Asc., Saturn will act as a functional benefic, whilst Jupiter will act as a functional malefic, since Sagittarius forms a square to the sign of Virgo. Hence, if Mercury were conjoined by Jupiter, it would enhance the devious side of Mercury. I am sure Dr. Farr can explain this better.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind your idea. Sure, Sagittarius forms a square to Virgo, where the ascendant in your example is, but how does it make Jupiter malefic? Is this idea mentioned in some literature? As I've mentioned, it's very different in Vedic astrology, where the rulers of kendra (angular) houses are functional benefics, while the rulers of 6th, 8th and 12th houses are functional malefics. To be honest, the latter idea seems a lot more logical to me...
 

david starling

Well-known member
I'm not sure I understand the logic behind your idea. Sure, Sagittarius forms a square to Virgo, where the ascendant in your example is, but how does it make Jupiter malefic? Is this idea mentioned in some literature? As I've mentioned, it's very different in Vedic astrology, where the rulers of kendra (angular) houses are functional benefics, while the rulers of 6th, 8th and 12th houses are functional malefics. To be honest, the latter idea seems a lot more logical to me...

The idea seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong), that one Chart's functional Malefic is another Chart's functional Benefic. In which case, there is no such thing as truly Malefic and Benefic-planets. In Western-astrology, Saturn and Jupiter are expressly labeled as such.
 

tripleooo

Well-known member
The idea seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong), that one Chart's functional Malefic is another Chart's functional Benefic. In which case, there is no such thing as truly Malefic and Benefic-planets. In Western-astrology, Saturn and Jupiter are expressly labeled as such.

I'm pretty sure you're correct about your understanding of functional benefics/malefics being different in each person's chart. I agree with it though, what I didn't understand was why the ruler of the sign that squares the one where the ascendant is would be considered malefic.

However, all this doesn't make Venus and Jupiter less of benefics or Mars and Saturn less of malefics. They are labeled so for a reason, because of their primary functions. Saturn as a functional benefic is still very different from Jupiter as a functional benefic.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes, I understand that.
However, in itself Mercury is neither benefic nor malefic.
Jupiter won’t get a negative coloring just by being in Mercury’s domicile.
On the contrary
Jupiter in Mercurys two domicles is peregrine
EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN SPECIFIC DEGREES OF THOSE DOMICILES

and
Jupiter has slightly more - but not much more - Essential dignity in Gemini than in Virgo
:smile:
because
Traditionally Jupiter has Essential dignity by Term in the degrees between 6 and 11 of Gemini
as well as dignity by Face in the degrees between 1 and 10 of Gemini
HOWEVER
Jupiter at the degrees between 1 and 6 of Gemini has only dignity by Face
and
ONLY dignity by Face in Virgo
and so
with the exception of those few degrees I mentioned
is PEREGRINE in Gemini AND Virgo

The word 'Peregrine' comes from a Latin term meaning 'alien' or 'foreigner'
pereger = beyond the borders
ager = land, i.e., 'beyond one's own land'.
In old English, to 'peregrinate' means to wander far from home.

Such a planet is therefore seen as having little influence or control over its environment.
In symbolic terms, it describes a drifter
- someone with no title or stake in his or her environment.
Peregrine planets fall under suspicion
in the same way that strangers are often viewed with suspicion.
It might portray someone who lacks a clear sense of focus
a sense of feeling 'lost' or on the outside of community thinking
or an inability to identify clear goals or offer resolute commitments to others.

Mutual reception does not stop a planet being defined as peregrine
although it influences description of how the planet operates.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/peregrine.html

I've also found out that terms "functional benefics" and "functional malefics" are used in Vedic astrology, but their approach to it is different from dr. farr described. Basically the lords of the 6th, 8th and 12th houses are functional malefics, even if they are Venus or Jupiter. The lords of angular and fire houses (1st, 5th and 9th), on the other hand, are functional benefics. Although it's Vedic astrology, this method makes sense to me and I think could be applied to Western astrology as well.
 

Oddity

Well-known member
In western astrology, they're usually called accidental malefics, which is slightly different to the jyotish concept of functional malefics, though there's a lot of commonality, too.

Jupiter or Venus ruling a bad house will make them functional malefics. They have to fulfil their office, so if they need to hurt you or kill you, they'll do it. Remember they both have diseases and other problems listed on the downside. If they're debilitated, they'll try to bring good, but it won't usually be very successful, and may be life-ruining, especially if the planet is out-of-sect and prominent.

Mars and Saturn will always cause harm. If they're in good dignity, they will more often represent the harm that you cause rather than the harm that befalls you, but nobody gets out unscathed. That's not to say they can't provide good in a chart, because they obviously can at times, but it isn't going to be their big role in most charts.

The malefics, Saturn especially, tend to exact a price for anything good they give you.
 

tripleooo

Well-known member
@JUPITERASC,

Thanks, I agree that I didn’t express my thoughts correctly. For sure, Jupiter is in detriment in Mercury’s domicile, which makes its expression unnatural and problematic. And yes, Jupiter is also peregrine through most of Gemini and Virgo which makes it a double trouble. The exact degrees of terms of Jupiter depend on whether you use Egyptian or Ptolemaic terms though. :wink:

What I meant by the highlighted sentence basically is that a planet in detriment is not the same as a functional malefic. There is a difference between these concepts that should be preserved.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
I reject the concept of a planet always being a benefic or always being a malefic-this is the same erroneous idea of something always being good and something always being bad, which is naive and simplistic thinking (in my opinion) The functional (ie dynamic or changeable) circumstances affecting a given planet will vary it from its essential qualities in a given situation: this is what I term functional malefic or functional benefic in evaluating a given planet in a given chart: where a totality of essential and accidental dignities dominate a planet, it is (from my perspective) a functional benefic, ie, it will operate in a benefic fashion in the given chart; where a totality of essential and accidental detriments predominate, the planet will operate as a functional malefic in the given chart. Historically, this concept-although using different wording-can be traced to the works of Morin de Villefranche.
 

Senecar

Well-known member
Masha Allah says in Book of Aristotle, that however, if solar rays fall between the besieged planet and the malefics from trigon, hexgon, tetragon or opposition, they restore the planet's power and freedom, because they shatter the besiege. pp.23 Persian Nativities Vol. I
 

petosiris

Banned
The idea seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong), that one Chart's functional Malefic is another Chart's functional Benefic. In which case, there is no such thing as truly Malefic and Benefic-planets. In Western-astrology, Saturn and Jupiter are expressly labeled as such.

Imo, that is because the Hellenistic astrologers did not intend to use the rulers of the places to produce certain effects, rather to represent that place.

Only Rhetorius has delineations of rulers in places producing delineation by virtue of just places, he is unique among all Hellenists in saying that the ruler of 12th in 1st indicates hardship in youth. If you think so, you accept the idea of functional malefics.

I personally do not like those delineations at all, it inverts the whole scheme. It is the ruler of 1st in 12th that is more likely to indicate hardship in youth. I much prefer to use the natural significations of the planets, places and signs than this.

The ruler of 12th will not produce any suffering on his own, only help or further hinder planets that chance to in that declining place. It may indicate the time before birth though. That planet is already slightly ''worsened'' (but not changed in its natural significations) by the fact that one of its domiciles is the twelfth whole sign house.

To clarify your last sentence, there is an explicit statement in Antiochus that says that the distinction between malefics and benefics is so-held (like a conventional distinction). Valens has a similar statement in saying that well placed malefics are indicative of great success, while poorly placed and inoperative benefics are indicative of reversals.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Imo, that is because the Hellenistic astrologers did not intend to use the rulers of the places to produce certain effects, rather to represent that place.

Only Rhetorius has delineations of rulers in places producing delineation by virtue of just places, he is unique among all Hellenists in saying that the ruler of 12th in 1st indicates hardship in youth. If you think so, you accept the idea of functional malefics.

I personally do not like those delineations at all, it inverts the whole scheme. It is the ruler of 1st in 12th that is more likely to indicate hardship in youth. I much prefer to use the natural significations of the planets, places and signs than this.

The ruler of 12th will not produce any suffering on his own, only help or further hinder planets that chance to in that declining place. It may indicate the time before birth though. That planet is already slightly ''worsened'' (but not changed in its natural significations) by the fact that one of its domiciles is the twelfth whole sign house.

To clarify your last sentence, there is an explicit statement in Antiochus that says that the distinction between malefics and benefics is so-held (like a conventional distinction). Valens has a similar statement in saying that well placed malefics are indicative of great success, while poorly placed and inoperative benefics are indicative of reversals.

Is there a "morality" component included in the definition of "Malefic and Benefic"? Success can be achieved by villains, and heroes often fail.
 

petosiris

Banned
Is there a "morality" component included in the definition of "Malefic and Benefic"? Success can be achieved by villains, and heroes often fail.

The chart shows both the subjective and objective experiences of the native. So conventional morality (judgement by society) and common sense as well. I've told you that every experience is unpleasant, pleasant or neither, and the benefic-malefic distinction* shows that, although I personally prefer the words good and bad, instead of good and evil, because they do not contain morality in them, but just subjective experience. The bad stars make undistinguished nativities or infamous, the good stars make distinguished and famous. If in between say average.

I do not think children who are not reared up can be called a success in any sense of that word. In those charts the bad are strong, the Lights and good are weak. If there is a specific combination for action/occupation, especially involving Saturn, Mars and Mercury, one will be infamous, that is if the length of life allows for it. That will be part successful I say.

Sun, Moon and Mercury are neither and their function in the chart is distinct from the malefics and benefics which show challenges and advancements respectively.
 
Last edited:
Top