Book Reviews

Saturn: A New Look at an Old Devil by Liz Greene

Since I am undergoing a significant Saturn-Moon transit, I decided to read one of the modern classics on Saturn. Published in 1976, this book is still up there in the Amazon rankings. Liz Greene is quite astute and she has many interesting things to say. But everything is based on the model of 1st house equals Aries, 2nd house equals Taurus, and so on around the zodiac. So she writes about Saturn in the 1st house and Saturn in Aries as if these are one and the same thing. In my view as a professional astrologer, this is quite wrong, and makes for a very muddy astrology.

There is a world of difference between Saturn in the first and Saturn in Aries. Saturn in the first can indicate someone who is serious, thoughtful, tends towards self restraint and responsibility, highly motivated yet subject to fear. Often people with Saturn in the first grow up more quickly than their peers - they are the mature ones who do things that people 10 years their senior are doing. They can even look older. And the houses that Saturn rules take on particular importance as Saturn brings these areas of life to the person. Saturn ruling the 7th in the first will involve the person with partnerships; Saturn ruling the 9th in the first will involve the person with education, travel or spirituality.

Saturn in Aries at its most basic level means delays and restrictions in new adventures. It doesn't necessarily mean someone who is thoughtful or mature. In fact it can be the reverse. There can be a fear of new things which can result in restraint in certain circumstances, but everything depends on where this Saturn in Aries is in the chart - this is usually a very problematic house. Saturn in the first has its challenges, but this is not the same nastiness as Saturn in Aries, traditionally considered the worst sign for the most difficult planet.

Liz Greene follows this 1st house equals Aries model until she gets to Cancer, when she says the traditional astrologers (like me) view this as the house of the father. And surprisingly she says in her experience this is right! There is really no connection between Cancer and fathers, so this is a glaring contradiction in logic. I don't know why she doesn't take the next step to question the entire paradigm and let signs be signs and houses be houses. She was probably just going along with the astrology she was taught. However this model is still quite common, and if there are any readers who still think this way I encourage you to re-examine this.

When she gets to aspects, she writes on them without distinction of the type of aspect or the nature of the signs involved. Saturn-Mercury are all the same, regardless of square, trine, etc, and she completely ignores the traditional refinement of reception, or relationship between signs.

So in summary, this book is useful for a person with moderate astrology experience who wants some insights on Saturn. But for someone learning astrology, the generalities do more harm than good. It is much better to learn about Saturn, the signs and the houses all as separate concepts, then combine the principles. When they are mixed together inappropriately, understanding suffers. If Liz learned a bit of traditional astrology, she'd be truly profound. Until then, read if you are skilled enough to pick out the gems, but not if you are trying to learn a valid astrology.