Greetings, Marius.
For clarification, when you say the "attitude" of the planet you are referring to whether or not the effects of the planet will be for the native or turned away from the native?
Yes, this is a classic example in traditional astrology of how a planet can be an accidental malefic if it is Lord (or Lady) of a malefic house.
This to me is a bit of an oversimplication of what we have gotten from Schmidt's studies. I may be misunderstanding, but what you are suggesting here is that if the diurnal planets (Kronos/Saturn and Zeus/Jupiter) are on the same side of the horizon as Helios/Sun they are properly configured with their sect light; the same would be true if Aphrodite/Venus and Ares/Mars are on the same side of the horizon as Selene/Moon?
According to Schmidt, it is the planets that are of the sect of the chart that will work for the native, and the planets that are contrary to the sect of the chart that will be opposed. His analogy is to that of political parties; those in favor and those against.
It would also appear that what you are referencing here is the concept that post-Hellenism (during the time of the Persian astrologers) became known as "hayz" and "halb?"
I am not entirely sure I am following your meaning here. If a planet in sect? Do you mean in sect of the chart, or on the proper side of the horizon with it's sect light?
The only signs in which the domicile lord and exaltation lord are of the same sect are Taurus and Virgo. To clarify what you are stating here, if a planet of the sect of the chart is in his own ruled sign, and is not regarded by Ptolemaic aspect by the exaltation ruler of that sign, the planet tends to help the native? Do you have sources for this? Because it suggests that if, for example, Moon is in Cancer in a night chart and is regarded by Jupiter from the sextile, trine, square, opposition, or conjunction, the Moon will not help the native. This pretty much flies in the face of most traditonal accepted ideology.
Again according to my own limited studies of Hellenistic astrology, I belive that what you are attempting to describe is planetary fitness, which is another way to determine if a planet is fit, or competent to conduct it's business (i.e. competent as stewards of the houses it rules by both domicile and exaltation.)
The first is fitness relative to the horizon. The second is fitness relative to the lights; the third fitness relative to the zodiac, and lastly fitness relative to benefic/malefic modification.
While all of these are necessary to explore, it may be seen in this chart that Saturn, while stationing, is debilitated and retrograde, cadent, and several other things I have already outlined above. Saturn is supported by benefics (though even if he were not retrograde/returning he would never accept anything from Jupiter in Aries, the sign of his fall.)
The key here is that Saturn is cadent. Saturn is slow (retrograde)
ITA, p. 87
Saturn is in his first station (making a phasis and this Saturn will color the native's life, but to determine how we must analyze this Saturn) and superior planets in their first station signify dissolution of purpose and uncertainty and disobedience.
dr. farr, I understand well what you are saying, in that perhaps this Saturn isn't as bad as it seems (I don't necessarily agree, but find that Saturn being cadent could be a reason that the manifestations in the natal show that Saturn doesn't get the chance to be highly disruptive) but the OP's question was specifically why the transits of Saturn weren't completely disagreeable. My point here is that this is because transiting planets are not our natal planets sprung loose and moving around.
It is readily apparent, based on the information we have been provided, that Saturn has been not completely comptent as house ruler over his signs in this native's life. See my 1st post for reference.
