The Distinction Between Stationary and Retrograde Planets?

1
This is a topic that I unintentionally started on a thread in the mundane astrology section and that i would like to continue to discuss here.

It seems to me that many astrologers think planets are either direct or they are retro, but that the place in the middle where they are in the process of changing direction and are neither moving forward or backward is to be relegated according to the millisecond or just when a planet goes forward or retro.. this approach seems kind of black and white to me and seems to ignore the idea that planets in what I would like to define more as 'stationary' are typically lumped into being retrograde when in fact they are essentially 'stationary'.

The conversation for me started on the recent thread in this section of the forum on William Lilly's birth chart. I pointed out that I thought Lillys mercury was essentially stationary and that I viewed this of special significance in a way unique and different then retrograde. What I didn't mention until later on another thread was that Lilly's chart has neptune stationary as well as mercury. For those who associate neptune with pisces, this would take on even more relevance given pisces rising in Lillys chart.. i was just reading the other day some comments from Geoffery Cornelius in his book 'The Moment of Astrology' how he views both uranus and neptune as being directly connected to astrology.. I suppose it depends on how astrology is approached!

Symbols can take on many different meanings which may or may not make sense to others. The idea of a planet being 'stationary' for a period of time longer then a minute or a day is something that I have considered for some time and been curious about without ever reading much on this topic from others.

The poster Stefan was gracious enough to give some examples in a nice post on the other forum that I am going to copy and paste here for others to consider. Thanks Stefan!
Stefan wrote:
james_m wrote: i am vying for another option - stationary regardless of whether it is turning retro or going direct.. my take is that a station of a planet has a big influence of a chart regardless whether it is sr or sd.
So do I.

I was first encountering this theory when reading James Braha's books.
He said that stationary planets are among the strongest in the chart.
This is my experience too. Sometimes it gives some spectacular expressions.

Some examples of stationary planets:

-Steve Jobs for example the apple phone mogul have MERCURY S (ME turning direct).
Which may be interesting.

-Amy Winehouse talent for music may be amplified with VENUS S (VE turning direct).

Hitlers wellknown talent for mass communications may be amplified with having JUPITER S (JU turning Rx).
( Jupiter moon in his 3rd house...public communications.)

World famous Vedic Astrologer B.V. Raman MERCURY S (ME turning Rx)

Donald Trump Have JUPITER S in 2nd house. (JU turning direct)
Does anyone have any thoughts they might like to add, or other examples that they feel might apply to stationary planets taking on a more pronounced role in a particular chart?

Here is one example i will leave with - Jerome Cardan's chart has saturn 2.3 days past the exact moment of it being stationary. I would consider it more significant due this feature of it being more stationary but moving into a retro phase. this might explain some of the characteristics of this man's life - famed doctor (saturn rules the midheaven) and etc.. thoughts?

edit - jan 9/13.. in researching on this site i happened to come across another thread on this same question. for more info on this topic one could read this thread as well -
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... highlight=
Last edited by james_m on Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

2
I can give you result from my own experience of working on the charts of people I know (family-relatives-friends) and people with whom i come into contact in a professional capacity. .

Yes, your observations that a planet exerts a stronger influence when its almost stationary is absolutely correct. It can almost become a Lord of the whole chart. This thing is difficult to observe unless and untill one takes into account 'Speed of Planets and Luminaries' (Sun does not show market deviations in speed).

Lilly has Mars in Virgo :brows . I would have been more interested if Neptune had changed a sign to be just in Virgo.

In my assessment of strength or otherwise of planetary bodies I determine or try to determine

-Strength or Weakness and
-Positivity or Negativity

There is no doubt that Mercury is the strongest in Lilly chart but it is neither negative nor positive. (Uranus adds originality but it does not make mercury negative or positive)

To begin with, Lilly was a common person, belonged from an average family. So it is no small wonder that by sheer dedication, application and will (12-14 hours of astrological study in a day) he stood up to challenge authorities and wrote a book which in my IMHO, is the most interesting book on astrology compared only to 'Saifuddin Hassam's book on Plamistry "Hatheli key Zuban" regarding unique style and expression(in urdu not available on net).

By nature Mercury as a planet is an amoral one. In lillly case, he has used it in a bit positive one. One thing which we observe while reading 'Christian Astrology' is that he makes it clear that he was short of time

-Plague....people dying etc...

So he has an ample excuse to be in a bit hurried tone while reading the book. We are bound to ignore his few mistakes because he is in hurry :lol: That does not stop him for discussing 7th house horaries in the more detailed way :brows.

There is one thing which i notice in Lilly's chart. He is supposed to be handsome with some effiminate features . His Venus has strength and Mars is weak. The pictures available of him in my opinion do not do justice to him.
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

3
As it would make sense certainly to have the times of retrogradations and stations here are, for example and in his own words, the data Lilly is giving :

Saturn:
He continueth Retrograde 140 dayes.
He is five dayes in his first station before Retrogradation,
and so many in his second station before Direction.

Jupiter:
He is Retrograde about 120 dayes, is five dayes in his first
before retrogradation, and four dayes stationary before
Direction.

Mars:
he is retrograde 80 dayes, &c. He is stationary
before he be retrograde, two or three dayes, &c. He is
stationary before direction two dayes; after, but one day

Venus:
she is two dayes stationary before retrogradation, and so many
before direction, and doth usually continue retrograde 42
dayes.

Mercury:
he is Stationary one day,
and retrograde 24. dayes.

Johannes

4
horatio and johannes,

thanks for your general comments and the commentary on lilly.

my interest is not in talking about lilly specifically, but since johannes has shared some commentary on this very topic that i am interested in talking about which is that of making a distinction on stationary verses retrograde motion in terms of days, i would like to ask a question about how one thinks lilly applies it.

it is interesting that lilly has come up with a simple idea of making a distinction in terms of days for the planets out to saturn and i wasn't aware of this. can you tell me how he applies it? does the stationary period for saturn for example begin exactly 5 days before the exact moment of the planet turning retrograde, or is it broken down 2 1/2 days on either side of the moment? in the example i gave of jerome cardan, the birth date /chart i have for him is sept 24 1501 640pm pavia, italy. given here at adb -
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Cardan,_Jerome
the exact moment saturn turns retrograde is put down to sept 22nd 1501 10:29:08 am for pavia, italy.
would the station refer to the time of sept 17th to sept 22nd, or would it refer to 2 1/2 days on either side of sept 22nd?

the degree and minutes of saturns position on sept 22nd is 19 gemini 19'57"
the d and m for sept 17th is 19 gemini 18'44"

saturn for cardans birth time of sept 24th - 2 and 1/2 days after the sept 22nd 10:28am "station" we find the position of saturn at 19 gemini 19'39"

back to my question - what does the 5 days refer in cardans example based on your understanding of lilly?
thanks!

i would like to add that lillys 'system' seems very arbitrary at this point to me.

5
Hi James

I welcome this thread as it is a most interesting subject. I found out of this theory some years ago while reading a book by James Braha where he stated that the stationary planets was magnified greatly in the chart.
This have been a theory which I think hold out in practice. It's certainly is worth more attention and study I think.

I did leaf through the chapter in this book today as I think there could be some interesting examples in it. And I will return to this in a later post.

But first I want to share one example I just found out.
I thought it would be interesting to check some famous outstanding persons charts and see if finding something.
So I started with Michelangelo the artist. Found his chart in solar fire and did
animate the chart. He was born 6 mars 1475. His venus went Rx 8 mars 1475 just two days. after his birth. This might be a fact that strenghtening the theory that it does not matter much if the planet is turning Rx or direct.


VENUS S.



Image

Wiki
"Michelangelo was considered the greatest living artist in his lifetime, and ever since then he has been held to be one of the greatest artists of all time.[2] A number of his works in painting, sculpture, and architecture rank among the most famous in existence.[2] His output in every field during his long life was prodigious; when the sheer volume of correspondence, sketches, and reminiscences that survive is also taken into account, he is the best-documented artist of the 16th century".


Stefan

6
Hi James_m,


Unfortunately I can not remember right now an instance in Lilly's horary examples (Deb might help) where he treated a planet which was stationary and made specific mention of it.


Few example I saw from my own horary experience (apart from observations in natal astrology).


Question: Who killed my father's buffalo?

The planet signifying Buffalo's significator was EXACTLY stationary.

Question: Where is my Purse?

The planet signifying Purse was EXACTLY stationary. The Querent had forgotten where she had placed/hidden her purse from her husband.

Lilly does mention few other rules in his Christian Astrology but does not seem to use them. One is perhaps degrees of deep or pitted, azimene degrees and degrees of increasing fortune (Christian Astrology P.117-118). Some one found out (I forgot the thread where it has been mentioned) that the table was advocated by Al Qabisi and Lilly just copied it. Astrologers may mention rules which have been advocated by past authors/authorities but have not been verified from their own experience.

My experience regarding stationary planets (in natal as well as horary) also point down to observations made by you but I would not worry whether Lilly, Abu Maashar or Al-Bairuni had used it or not :)
Regards

Morpheus

https://horusastropalmist.wordpress.com/

7
The times Lilly gives for a planet's station are rough average. If an ephemeris does not show "S" for station, you can go backwards from "R" (retrograde) or from "D" (direct) and you will find that in the space of days given by Lilly, the planet moves nearly not at all. Close to the middle of this space of time there is a point where not the least movement is to be discerned, not a second. This point should be rather sharp or short with Mercury because of his speed, and probably softer or longer the less speed a planet can develop.

But even though this is only a really very little moment, the planet is counted longer to be in his station, viz. during a time which is about as long as that mentioned by Lilly.

You must understand that in reality the planets always move forward. Only with reference to the ecliptic they seem to move backwards and seem to stand still. We see only their apparent movement - with the earth as the center - and measure it in the ecliptic.

Johannes

8
thanks stefan, horatio, johannas and gem!

stefan and horatio, we are on the same page in thinking a stationary planet is an unique characteristic of a chart that may hold some special insights into a person. it doesn't happen that often, but when it does i think it matters. thanks for the examples.

johannas - thanks for giving me more info on lillys viewpoint on this phenomenon. how would you apply it to the example i gave earlier on jerome cardan? would it apply, or not?

gem - it is most difficult to get some kind of objective perspective on ones own chart as i see it, but thank you for offering your insight on this.

here is another example some might wish to consider. f. scott fitzgerald.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Fit ... ,_F._Scott

in fitzgeralds chart, mercury is 1.5 days away from a station while neptune is 2.2 days past the exact moment of the station. according to the bio on adb on fitzgerald "The year 1919 was eventful. In February Fitzgerald was discharged from the army and took a job in an advertising agency in New York. In the spring, he attempted suicide (as he attempted again in 1935 or 1936), and in October he sold his first story to the Saturday Evening Post." 1919 coincides with the solar arc, or sec prog of sun to his natal mercury which rules the 5th and 8th houses working with the B rated time for him. i point this out only to shed more light on the stationary mercury which is more focal thru directions on this year.

it would be interesting to apply these or similar techniques to lillys chart too, but until i read his autobiography, i will leave it til later.

we still remain in a nebulus zone with regard to how wide of a window is acceptable for a stationary planet.

Bases of astrological delineations?

9
Good evening,

In the last paragraph of the last Section of Tetrabiblos, Book I, Klaudios Ptolomaios summarised salient items to consider when evaluating each planet thus (English translation from the original ancient Greek by Professor Frank Robbin):
"From all this then, it is easy to see that the quality of each of the stars must be examined with reference both to its own natural character and that also of the signs that include it, or likewise from the character of its aspects to the sun and the angles, in the manner which we have explained. Their power must be determined, in the first place, from the fact that they are either oriental and adding to their proper motion 133 ? for then they are most powerful ? or occidental and diminishing in speed, for then their energy is weaker. Second, it is to be determined from their position relative to the horizon; for they are most powerful when they are in mid-heaven or approaching it, and second when they are exactly on the horizon or in the succedent place; 134 their power is greater when they are in the orient, and less when they culminate beneath the earth or are in some other aspect to the orient; if they bear no aspect 135 at all to the orient they are entirely powerless." (bold emphasis added)
The stations are implicit in the bold text. They are explained in more detail, in particular concerning S?l?n? and the 'outer' planets, in Book 1, Section 8:
"8. Of the Power of the Aspects to the Sun.

Now, mark you, likewise, according to their aspects to the sun, the moon and three of the planets 35 experience increase and decrease in their own powers. For in its waxing from new moon to first quarter the moon is more productive of moisture; in its passage from first quarter to full, of heat; from full to last quarter, of dryness, and from last quarter to occultation, 36 of cold. The planets, in oriental aspects only, are more productive of moisture from rising to their first station, 37 of heat from first station to evening rising, of dryness from evening rising to the second station, of cold from second station to setting; and it is clear that when they are associated with one another they produce very many variations of quality in our ambient, the proper force of each one for the most part persisting, but being changed in quantity by the force of the stars that share the configuration." (bold emphasis added)
For those perhaps unfamiliar with Ptolemy's astronomy, it may be useful to recall that the phases of retrograde motions and stations are based on the four quarters of the planetary epicycles. We note that the phases are dynamic, not static.

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

Inversely proportional to speed?

11
Good evening,

Mr James, what is please your understanding of the relationship, if any, between relative fast and slow planetary motion, i. e. compared to mean motion, and 'strength' of the planet? If the relationship is not directly proportional, as Claude Ptolemy seems to have suggested, is it inversely proportional? Is your eventual proposed rule consistent? What lead you to disagree with Ptolemy on this matter?

Best regards,

lihin
Non esse nihil non est.

12
hi lihin,

i would like to start by working with what ptolemy means with the word 'weak' or 'weaker' first..

astrology is a symbolic language.. what is one to make of this comment of a slower planet being 'weaker'? does it mean in the case of lilly for example that due the slowness of his mercury, he was mentally slow? perhaps you would like to explain what ptolemy is getting at with the quote you offered earlier... if you want to offer a specific example - great!

back to my 'subjective' position. i maintain stationary planets are actually stronger in this regard - they have a much greater influence given this unique characteristic of their ''slowness'.. this would include planets that are about to turn direction either way..

here is another thought that might parallel this.. in general due to it's proximity to the sun mercury appears to move much faster then saturn. does this mean saturn is therefore 'weaker' because it appears to move 'slower'? lets play around with these ideas and see what we can come up with.. i maintain slower is the opposite of weaker for my take on astro symbolism..