Venus and Mercury are traditionally considered “positive” planets — Venus associated with inner and outer relationships, balance, harmony; Mercury with curiosity and data collection. But when you really look at their rulerships, they each carry inherent archetypal tension:
Venus rules both Taurus and Libra, which are quincunx (150°) by sign. Taurus is about self-reliance and internal value; Libra is about attunement to others and external harmony. These signs don’t share element, modality, or polarity. So Venus herself contains a built-in dissonance between self-containment and relational balancing.
Mercury rules both Gemini and Virgo, which are square (90°) to each other. Gemini gathers information freely and stays open-ended; Virgo wants to self analyze and apply order . So Mercury also carries an internal square between modes of thinking.
Given this, I’m wondering:
Why are Venus and Mercury so often described as “positive” when they carry this tension of a quincunx and a square naturally
Should we instead be viewing these planets as reflectors or activators of these tensions — and their transits as opportunities to integrate the contradiction rather than expect them to feel “easy”?
And could the reason a Venus or Mercury transit feels “negative” sometimes be because that internal archetypal tension is being highlighted — especially if the transit is in a difficult house/sign or forms hard aspects?
Would it make sense to start looking at what a healed quincunx or healed square looks like, rather than expect Venus and Mercury to always express harmoniously?
I’m curious how others here see this — especially from an evolutionary lens.
Thank you in advance!
Thank you so much!