Retrograde

[Arena]

Might I ask what sidereal experts say about retrogade planets in natal chart or SR?
Do you consider them "afflicted" and not as powerful? Or do you not consider planets having the possibility to go retrogade at all? Since in reality that is not possible for them.

[Arena]

by Jim Eshelman on Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:14 pm

Arena wrote:

Might I ask what sidereal experts say about retrogade planets in natal chart or SR?

Let's talk just about a natal for the moment.

In general, Siderealists say nothing at all about retrogradation. Stations are important, but retrogradation is, at best, a minor effect.

Specifically, the likes of Fagan, Bradley, and Firebrace placed no reliance on retrogradation.

In the late 1970s or early '80s, I did the statistical work-up for T. Patrick Davis'; study of retrogrades. She had a number of vocation and life-situation groups broken down by number of times each planet was retrograde, and I crunched the numbers to isolate what was significant. The most important finding was that stations were much more significant than retrogradation. Retrogradation had statistically significant results, but they were very minor - very low level of significance (often no more than the 10% level). One easily could ignore them without missing anything, I'm sure.

That's the qnatitiative part. What about qualitative? Well, in simple terms, the discernible effect was that the planet's nature was slightly suppressed. That is, if Planet X had characteristics that would be associated with a profession studied, X would be less likely to be retrograde. If Planet X had characteristics contrary to those expected for an occupation studied, then X was a little more likely to be retrograde.

There may be a more subtle distinction. I've seen astrologers try to qualitatively narrow the meaning, to say planets are inturned etc. rather than just "weaker." But that's subjective and conjectural. The simple, observable thing is that the planet seems to be slightly weaker.

BTW, this is puzzling in another sense. Planets from Mars outward, when retrograde, are closer to Earth. (When opposite Sun, they are close to their perigee.) The Ebertins did some major work with distance values that seemed to suggest that planets are stronger when they are at their closest to Earth, and weakest when farthest away, and this is exactly opposite what seems to be the case from the retrograde studies. I've never seen the Ebertin original data, and the formal studies, I think, were only published in German; though I generally respect their rigor (Germans are good at rigor <g>), but I'm led to suspect that their
distance value studies are not as good as my first impression.

Do you consider them "afflicted" and not as powerful? Or do you not consider planets having the possibility to go retrogade at all? Since in reality that is not possible for them.

It's a visual phenomenon, so it's not only possible but actual. That makes it worth investigating. It's just that the investigation that has been done has suggested that there isn't much effect.

Re: A good method for studying Sidereal Astrology
Postby SteveS on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:40 am

Jim wrote:

Stations are important; the most important finding was that stations were much more significant than retrogradation.

I totally agree based on my personal life experiences. IMO, there is nothing more potent in astrology than an outer planet Station on a natal angle. Stations are also very potent on return chart angles. I once experience Saturn Station on my natal Asc, and without a doubt it was the worst experience in my entire life. FWIW, Saturn goes Station (SRx) at 9,59 Scorpio in mid March and basically stays at 9 Scorpio for Feb, Mar, and April. Anyone with natal angles/return angles or planets at 8,9, or 10 degrees of the fixed signs (Sidereal) should note this because it means Saturn will partile aspect these degrees mid Feb-mid April, a most potent long lasting aspect.