Mars/Moon - dignity and fall?

1
I'm not sure where this question goes so I'll try here:

Can someone tell me why Mars is dignified in Scopio - a water, sign - wet and cold, while Mars is a fiery planet, whereas the Moon is in its fall in Scorpio even though Scorpio is a water sign like Pisces & cancer ?

I've always accepted this because that's what I was always told. But now I'm wondering why it is so.

RC

2
Hi,

as a malefic, Mars can also be dignified if occupies a sign with the opposite nature, that is, a watery one. But not only nature counts: he must occupy a sign in quartile with the ones of the luminaries. That is why he gets Scorpius. The same is the situation with Saturn, which has to occupy a sign in opposite the 'houses' of the luminaries. One of them, Aquarius has a nature contrary to Saturn's. These contrarieties can better regulate the malefics, therefore they are their joys.
In the case of fall of the Moon the frame is somewhat more difficult. Her fall is Scorpius because her exaltation is Taurus, and it must be Taurus as she occupies the neighboring sign to the Sun. As for the question why she does not get Pisces instead, well, perhaps others can answer shortly.

3
Osthanes wrote:Hi,

as a malefic, Mars can also be dignified if occupies a sign with the opposite nature, that is, a watery one. But not only nature counts: he must occupy a sign in quartile with the ones of the luminaries. That is why he gets Scorpius. The same is the situation with Saturn, which has to occupy a sign in opposite the 'houses' of the luminaries. One of them, Aquarius has a nature contrary to Saturn's. These contrarieties can better regulate the malefics, therefore they are their joys.
In the case of fall of the Moon the frame is somewhat more difficult. Her fall is Scorpius because her exaltation is Taurus, and it must be Taurus as she occupies the neighboring sign to the Sun. As for the question why she does not get Pisces instead, well, perhaps others can answer shortly.
Thanks a lot for the explanation.

RC

4
as a malefic, Mars can also be dignified if occupies a sign with the opposite nature,
It's not limited to malefics.

Venus (generally considered warm and moist but there are some who say cold and moist) rules cold and dry Taurus. In fact each planet (not including the lights) gets one of its nature and one that is opposite its nature except Jupiter.

Venus warm and moist gets Libra and Taurus
Mercury cold and dry gets Virgo and Gemini
Saturn cold and dry gets Capricorn and Aquarius
Mars hot and dry gets Aries and Scorpio.

Jupiter warm and moist gets Pisces (cold and moist) and Saggitarius (hot and dry) Morinus resolved this inconsistency by saying the ancients were wrong: Jupiter is hot and dry (mildly so).

The exaltations are possibly and older system of domicile rulership. They are not related to the current system of domicile rulership.

Tom

5
Tom wrote:
as a malefic, Mars can also be dignified if occupies a sign with the opposite nature,
It's not limited to malefics.

Venus (generally considered warm and moist but there are some who say cold and moist) rules cold and dry Taurus. In fact each planet (not including the lights) gets one of its nature and one that is opposite its nature except Jupiter.

Venus warm and moist gets Libra and Taurus
Mercury cold and dry gets Virgo and Gemini
Saturn cold and dry gets Capricorn and Aquarius
Mars hot and dry gets Aries and Scorpio.

Jupiter warm and moist gets Pisces (cold and moist) and Saggitarius (hot and dry) Morinus resolved this inconsistency by saying the ancients were wrong: Jupiter is hot and dry (mildly so).

The exaltations are possibly and older system of domicile rulership. They are not related to the current system of domicile rulership.

Tom
Thanks Tom.

Do some planets who have no dignities in an opposite element sign, do better out of their element than others?

For example Moon in Leo. I would think she would not like that placement very much being hot and dry and masc. where as she is cold/wet and fem. Is there a general description of how a planet would react in such a state that you can take as a constant?

Also, I've seen a list of where the planets have their "joys" and it is said that Moon has her joy in the 3rd, yet reading one of Lilly's charts regarding a rumour about an attack on the government which was predicted by Lilly to be false, he stated that the Moon being in Gemini, a sign in which she takes no delight. . Yet Gemini is the natural ruler of 3rd house which then seems inconsistent with this notion that Moon has her joy in the 3rd. I was then wondering is there another list in Joys by sign? Because that made no sense to me.

Thanks,

RC

RC

6
Hello,
one of Lilly's charts regarding a rumour about an attack on the government which was predicted by Lilly to be false, he stated that the Moon being in Gemini, a sign in which she takes no delight. . Yet Gemini is the natural ruler of 3rd house which then seems inconsistent with this notion that Moon has her joy in the 3rd.
The ancients would not have said that Gemini is the ancient ruler of the 3rd house. One, because signs do not rule. Two, the idea that house = sign = planet is a modern innovation to facilitate learning (but alas!, it's wrong or at least not mentioned by the ancients). The idea that 1st H = Aries, 2nd H = Taurus and hence, 3rd H = Gemini, is used by modern astrologers...

The nature of the planets is usually the first the ancients look at in delineation (with modifications of course depending on their essential and accidental dignities). We have Venus = lesser benefic, Mars = lesser malefic, Jupiter = greater benefic and Saturn = greater malefic. Mercury is, of course, changeable. Ptolemy tried to justify this by using nature (or qualities) of the planets though he was not that convincing e.g. Mars = malefic because he is dry in excess, Saturn is malefic because he is cold in excess and the benefics are benefic because they are temperate in nature...

The first modifying factor (that makes a planet expresses more of its good or evil) to look at according to Hellenistic astrologers would be the sect of the planet... though this has fallen out of favor by the medievalists.

The domicile rulerships of the planets (the next most important modifying factors of the planets to look at) refer to their positions relative to the sun and their planetary spheres. As mentioned by Ptolemy (and others), sun (the king) rules Leo because he reaches his highest elevation on the ecliptic when he is in Leo. Moon (the queen) must be next to the king, hence she rules either Cancer or Virgo. She rules Cancer probably because when moon travels through the stars of Cancer, she climbs to her highest position in the night sky (making the highest full moon of the year during winter solstice). Mercury the next sphere rules the next two signs adjacent to Leo and Cancer i.e. Gemini and Virgo. Venus the following sphere rules the following two signs i.e. Taurus and Libra and so on and so forth.

I think the ancients came up with the nature of the planets and domicile rulerships first, and then came up with the doctrine of aspects. Taurus (ruled by Venus) sextiles Cancer (ruled by moon) and Libra (ruled by Venus) sextiles Leo (ruled by Sun) - hence a sextile aspect is an aspect of Venus - it is a harmonious aspect becasue Venus is the lesser benefic. By similar analysis, trine is an aspect of Jupiter, hence it is very harmonious because Jupiter is the greater benefic. We can do the same for all aspects. By this token, this is why conjunction is not considered an aspect by the ancients. It is the most powerful "aspect" as it is some sort of unification...

Exaltation rulerships: Sun is exalted in Aries because this is where he appears after death (the month before was winter) and he gains elevation slowly throughout the spring and summer months reaching his highest at summer solstice. The moon, again has to be next to the sun. She is exalted in Taurus because when Sun is in Aries, she first appears as the crescent when she is in Taurus. The rest of the planets exaltations cannot be explained easily as it is lost in antiquity but there are conjectures (some use the thema mundi chart...).

Now, the essential dignities are universal modifiers and accidental dignities are the local modifiers of the planets.
JOY: As far as I am aware, there are two lists of Planetary Joys. First, the planetary Joys in signs and this falls under universal indicators. According to Bonatti, planets find Joy in one of the the signs they rule whose sect agree with the sect of the planets. Second, the planetary Joys in houses (as you have mentioned). You will have noticed of course, that the nocturnal planets find Joy in the houses below the horizon and diurnal planets find Joy in the houses above the horizon.

Joys and dignities are different concepts and they should not be mixed. Planetary Joys in houses are local modifiers and essential dignities are universal modifiers - they mean different thing. Moon finds Joy in the third house (the house of goddes) and Sun finds Joy in the opposite house
i.e. 9th house (the house of god).

Why is Moon in Gemini undignifed then? The ancients would have said that the worst position (by sign) a planet could have is the sign opposite its exaltation sign i.e. the sign of its depression (or fall). The other sign is the twelfth sign from the sign it rules. A planet in the twelfth sign from the sign it rules does not see his own sign or exaltation sign - BUT there is only one planet where this applies - the MOON. For example, Venus in Virgo is in the 12th from Libra (the sign she rules) but she trines Taurus (another sign she rules). Planets (minus luminaries) rule 2 signs, hence if it is in the twelfth of one sign, it still aspects the other sign it rules. Sun rules Leo, when he is in the 12th from Leo (i.e. Cancer) he still aspects his exaltation sign (Aries). The moon HOWEVER, when she is in the 12th from Cancer (i.e. Gemini), she does not aspect her domicile and exaltation sign (i.e. Cancer and Taurus). Hence, she is in bad condition (12th from her domicile sign - Cancer) with no help (unlike other planets). This is why she is considered having no delight in Gemini...

Interestingly, in addition to the above, the moon finds no essential dignities (domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face using Dorothean trip rulerships and Egyptian terms) whatsoever in the whole sign of Gemini. The same is true when moon is in Aries but moon in Gemini is worse as she is also in 12th from her domicile sign (Cancer).
Last edited by astrojin on Sat Sep 22, 2007 3:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

7
astrojin wrote:Hello,

Why is Moon in Gemini undignifed then? The ancients would have said that the worst position (by sign) a planet could have is the sign opposite its exaltation sign i.e. the sign of its depression (or fall). The other sign is the twelfth sign from the sign it rules. A planet in the twelfth sign from the sign it rules does not see his own sign or exaltation sign - BUT there is only one planet where this applies - the MOON. For example, Venus in Virgo is in the 12th from Libra (the sign she rules) but she trines Taurus (another sign she rules). Planets (minus luminaries) rule 2 signs, hence if it is in the twelfth of one sign, it still aspects the other sign it rules. Sun rules Leo, when he is in the 12th from Leo (i.e. Cancer) he still aspects his exaltation sign (Aries). The moon HOWEVER, when she is in the 12th from Cancer (i.e. Gemini), she does not aspect her domicile and exaltation sign (i.e. Cancer and Taurus). Hence, she is in bad condition (12th from her domicile sign - Cancer) with no help (unlike other planets). This is why she is considered having no delight in Gemini...

Interestingly, in addition to the above, the moon finds no essential dignities (domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face using Dorothean trip rulerships and Egyptian terms) whatsoever in the whole sign of Gemini. The same is true when moon is in Aries but moon in Gemini is worse as she is also in 12th from her domicile sign (Cancer).
Wow. Thank you for the detailed explanation. 12th from sign it rules while being in no aspect to another sign of rulership or exaltation. This actually computes ! :) I will therefore be able to remember it rather than trying to mindlessly memorize it without reason.

Thanks again,

RC

8
You have so many things confused here I don't know where to begin. Let's just put it this way: The Joys are an ancient system of uncertain or maybe unknown origin. Wherever they came from, they are an accidental dignity, not an essential dignity. They are also a minor dignity. A seriously debilitated planet in the house of his joy is still seriously debilitated only a little happier about it. Joys do not trump essential dignity.

The Moon has no essential dignity in Gemini. I think it was Culpeper who noted that Moon in Gemini was a serious affliction since Gemini is the 12th house of her domicile, Cancer. Regardless of which way we look at it, or if we look at it both ways, Moon is weak in Gemini and being in the third house does not overcome it.

Finally, the reference to Gemini "ruling" the third house is irrelevant. For all I know the joys predate the signs, but regardless, this idea that the sign = the house and even the planet is a handy memory device for the beginner. It is not of sufficient substance to seriously challenge a system that developed over thousands of years. In fact it might be a good idea to forget it.

If you are genuinely trying to learn traditional astrology, I strongly suggest that you try to learn the system without challenging it. Challenges are meaningless without sufficient knowledge of and experience using the system. And having little experience is the definition of the word "beginner." There are several good books on the market for beginner's. For horary try John Frawley's The Horary Textbook. For general traditional astrology try Joe Crane's A Practical Guide to Traditional Astrology. Then put aside whatever you know about modern astrology and work with those books, or take a course from a reputable teacher. This last is the best way to learn quickly and thoroughly.

Tom

9
Tom wrote:You have so many things confused here I don't know where to begin. ...

If you are genuinely trying to learn traditional astrology, I strongly suggest that you try to learn the system without challenging it. Challenges are meaningless without sufficient knowledge of and experience using the system.

Tom

Tom,

I don't understand. I wasn't trying to challenge the system. Is that directed to me or astrojin?

I'm just trying to understand some things here that I always took for granted or never took time to understand.

After November I plan to take Zoller's advanced course. (What do you think of it?) I have his foundation course. I am also ordering Frawley's horary book.

RC

10
Hi Astrojin :) ..a really good explanation. :'

We understand that Scorpio (her fall sign) is worst for Moon. And yet, which of both Capricorn and Gemini is worse place for Moon?

11
astrojin wrote:The ancients would have said that the worst position (by sign) a planet could have is the sign opposite its exaltation sign i.e. the sign of its depression (or fall). The other sign is the twelfth sign from the sign it rules.
So,
Mars would be most debilitated in Cancer, then Pisces and Libra!?
Taurus follows. Would Pisces be worse sign for Mars than Taurus?

12
I think it was Culpeper who noted that Moon in Gemini was a serious affliction since Gemini is the 12th house of her domicile
An earlier source for this comment is Bonatti?s 5th consideration:
The sixth [way that the Moon is afflicted] is when she is in Gemini, which is the 12th sign from her own.
I?m sure its older still, but I have that page open at the moment so this post caught my eye.

Steven, I?ve also read that comment in Alchabitius and other places, and took it for granted that it was in the Hellenistic sources too. After reading your post I had a quick flick through a few places where I thought it might have been mentioned, but found no reference to it in older texts, so now I am not so sure (admittedly, it was a quick flick).

It will be interesting if a clear statement to that effect can be found in older sources. The idea that the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn is solar, and that from Aquarius to Cancer is lunar is in Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos 1.17., and from the way that he speaks of 'they', (which usually implies 'the ancients'), he leaves the impression that it was an old principle in his time:
... they assumed the semicircle from Leo to Capricorn to be solar and that from Aquarius to Cancer to be lunar, so that in each of the semicircles one sign might be assigned to each of the five planets as its own, one bearing aspect to the sun and the other to the moon, consistently with the spheres of their motion and the peculiarities of their natures.
However, there is nothing in his text to suggest that the luminaries get the equivalent dignity of term in these placements. I?m curious as to how old and widespread the idea was, so will be interested in anything else you turn up on this. If I find anything more myself, I'll let you know.

Regards
Deb
Last edited by Deb on Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.