skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Moon in Gemini: 12th Sign from Domicile

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tanit
Moderator


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 1116
Location: California, USA

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 5:30 am    Post subject: Moon in Gemini: 12th Sign from Domicile Reply with quote

Hi all,

I've been wondering about certain sign placements for the Moon, as Moon in Gemini came up in particular. The Moon is obviously peregrine in Gemini, and it’s also a barren, hot and masculine sign (just in general there is not much in common there), but I am wondering now why the 12th sign from domicile (Gemini being 12th sign from Cancer, Moon's domicile) sounds so afflictive:

Bonatti, Anima Astrologiae, 5th consideration of the Moon
Quote:
6th is when she is in Gemini, which is the twelfth from her own House.


I found a few other quotes mentioning Moon in Gemini:

Lilly, CA, Book I (page 122)
Quote:
It’s not safe to judge when the Moon is in the later degrees of a Sign, especially in Gemini, Scorpio or Capricorn; or as some say, when she is in Via Combusta, which is, when she is in the last 15 degrees of Libra, or the first fifteen degrees of Scorpio.


Book II (page 200)
Quote:
Secondly, I found the Moon cadent, and in Gemini, a Signe wherein she nothing delights; a second strong evidence of a false rumor.


Is the 12th sign from domicile afflictive for all planets or the Moon in particular? For example, Mars has triplicity in water signs, including water signed Pisces (also face and term in some areas), 12th sign from his domicile of Aries.

And does this mean we also look at the 6th or 8th sign (since these seem like probable trouble too) from domicile? We would see Sagittarius and Aquarius would be troublesome, although Sagittarius can be regarded as favorable for the Moon because she is not usually considered VOC in this sign (as with Pisces, Cancer, and Taurus), as domicile ruler of benefic Jupiter. Or even 12th from exaltation, etc. (Aries for Moon).

We already have 7th sign from the domicile as detriment (Capricorn), and 7th sign from exaltation as fall (Scorpio), so if you keep adding on these other signs it just seems like most of the sign placements are not very good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1527

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's also possible that these are just relevant for the Moon only.

The moon is very sensitive to any horary question so could well be a unique planet for these 'strictures'. Horaries are obviously very sensitive to the Moon's positions and aspects etc.

One pattern which emerges from what you've said is that there is a warning if the Moon is in a sign that:

A) It is in detriment
B) It is in fall
C) It is antiscion

When viewed from this vantage point, it makes a kind of sense. It would therefore be less relevant that Gemini happnes to be the domicile moon's 12th house as much as Gemini has the 'shadow' of its domicile.

Just observing the pattern, it might not be anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1527

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"C) It is antiscion "

Of course generally antiscion can show some sort of favour I guess, but Moon is peregrine in Gemini so maybe the idea of the 'cast shadow' occults some of the moon's power.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PFN



Joined: 28 Dec 2008
Posts: 393
Location: Ouro Preto, Brasil

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Tanit...

I was thinking about the overexageration of cons possible in a horary/natal as well. If you keep following all of these rules, you end up with very little room of maneuver. For one, I do not even look at Via Combusta anymore, I simply find it absurd, because it is a derivation of exaltation and fall dignities. And since I have a lot of trouble using exaltation as well, cause I live in the sourthern hemisphere, but that is another matter entirely...

Still, the Moon in Gemini is in aversion to her own domicile, and that is a sign of weakness, and since horary is so heavily reliant over the Moon, that could be where this consideration steam from (showing that the Moon is less apt to be transmiter of influences). Obviously, we would have to apply that to the 6th sign of Sagitarius and to the 8th of Aquarius as well... I just drop this altogether also.
_________________
Paulo Felipe Noronha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
cor scorpii



Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 580

Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello, all Very Happy

Some time ago there was a discussion regarding this aphorism (I don't have time to search for the thread now) so I'm pasting Steven's opinion on it - hope it clarifies a thing or two (well, it certainly helped me) Smile

Quote:
I'm not all that certain Culpeper (and Lilly for that matter) are correct in that assumption.

First, Gemini is the antiscia of Cancer and vice versa. That is to say that as the Moon travels Gemini her influence is in the inverse degrees of Cancer and her domicile! Why is that an affliction?

Secondly, I am not at all convinced that the Moon is peregrine in Gemini. The reason I say this is that there is a large question mark since Bonatti (who is quoting Alchabitius who in turn is quoting Abu Ma'shar) writes that the Moon has the same virtue in the signs from 0 Aquarius to 30 Cancer as the other planets have in their terms. He wrote likewise concerning the Sun it has the same virtue in the signs from 0 Leo to 30 Capricorn as the other planets have in there terms.

This may have grown from the teaching that the other planets obtained their domiciles because of those signs relationship to the signs of the Luminaries where Mercury received Gemini because of his proximity to the luminaries. Venus received Taurus because it is sextile with Cancer; Mars, Aries because of its square to Cancer: Jupiter, Pisces because of its trine and triplicity with Cancer; because Aquarius is not the opposition of the Moons domicile but is in aversion, it was included in the Moons 'domain'. In concept, the Sun is King and the Moon Queen and they each are respected in their 'halves' since those received their domiciles because of them! People in England probably can relate to this since officially, the Queen owns the property of England. In practice no, but I imagine there is not many households where she would not be received with some virtue there <g> as it is all her kingdom!

If the consideration and practice is correct then of course Gemini would be within her "domain" and she would have virtue there!

I am of the opinion (and I have been practicing this for several years now) that this "dignity" of the luminaries has its origins in the most ancient and original terms, the Chaldean Terms, which gave degrees in the signs to the Luminaries. These terms are also listed in Vettius Valens Anthology. As Astrology moved into Egypt and became the core of Hellenistic astrology the luminaries were removed from the lists of degrees of terms in the signs. However we find in Paulus for example, some interesting statements. He tells us in his discussion of the terms that the luminaries are not in the lists because they have virtue in all the signs!

Later in Al Biruni when he is also discussing the terms he also makes a very similar statement except that the luminaries rule their own "domains". And then we have the statements by Abu Ma'shar, Alchabitius and finally Bonatti which states unequivicably that the luminaries have the same virtue in these domains as the other planets in their terms!

At the time Zoller and Hand translated the first four treatises from Bonatti they commented this peculiarity! In fact you won't find any medieval or Hellenistic astrologer making the statement that the Moon is peregrine, or a stranger or in an unfamiliar sign when in Gemini!

I'll try and post some quotes from different authors this weekend when I have some time. But this is just some food for thought, although I'm sure there is not a few who will say "impossible" <g>
«It is a debility according to Bonatti as it is in his 5th consideration (no. 6) which he clearly draws from Sahl ibn Bišr.»


It is correct that Bonatti is quoting Sahl. Just because he quotes Sahl doesn't automatically make what Sahl said correct! However, I need to explain what I mean. I didn’t specifically address whether it is a corruption or not except in the most general sense. We need to ask ourselves if this judgment by Sahl was something that was mainstream and if so why. If it is not, then what is behind the judgment?

I feel I can with some degree of assurance, say that this judgment in its context was not advocated by either Sahl’s predecessors or his contemporaries and successors. Yet, it was. – Confusing?

I think that you will find that this list of “corruptions” of the Moon is very consistent from Dorotheus and the Hellenistic astrologers through the Arabic Era; with the lone exception of Sahl.

So let’s start with Dorotheus, who was probably the first to express in a list, the corruptions of the Moon.
Quote:
« [1] I will make clear to you its (the Moon’s) corruption if it is eclipsed, and worse than this if its eclipse is in the sign in which the Moon was at the birth of this native or its eclipse is in trine of the sign in which the Moon was when this native was born. [2] If the Moon is under the Sun’s rays, its light is destroyed, and it is not seen, then it is corrupted… [3] If the Moon is in the dodecatemoria of Mars or Saturn, [4] if the Moon is in the middle of the equator, descending towards the South, [5] and if the Moon is in opposition to the Sun, then it is bad… [6] If the Moon is with a malefic or aspecting it and [7] if there is a withdrawal of the Moon from the Sun in longitude and latitude [8] and if the Moon is in its least motion, that is if it is decreasing in its counting and its motion in a day and a night is less than twelve degrees, then the motion of it is like the motion of Saturn. [9] If the Moon in its motion is in the path which the learned call “the burned path”, (the burned path is the middle of the equator, which is Libra and Scorpio) [10] and if the Moon is in the last degrees of a sign, then it is according to this in the term of Saturn or Mars, and none of the terms which are at the end of the signs are harder than the terms of these two. [11] If the Moon is cadent toward the ninth from the cardine which is the house of government [the tenth]…»


As you can see, there were 11 misfortunes. None of the other Hellenistic astrologers compiles a ‘list’ of corruptions of the Moon. It is unnecessary to quote any of the Arabic Era astrologers as they all quote Dorotheus: for example, Abu Ma’shar, Alchabitius, and Ibn Ezra all cite the exact same 11 conditions.

So in fact, Sahl’s list is unique for he has things listed which other astrologers discussed pertaining to all of the planets but were not necessarily considered just a corruption of the Moon. All Bonatti did was compile a list of what the mainstream astrologers of the past considered plus the additions of Sahl and then added a couple of his own. For example, Sahl says,
Quote:
«…when it is in the degrees of its own fall or when it is joined to a planet that is in its own fall.»


Well, this wasn’t exclusively a corruption of the Moon; it is true of all the planets.
Quote:
« The seventh is when it is cadent from the angles or when it is joined to a planet that is cadent from the angles.»


Again, this is not particular to the Moon alone. It is true of all the planets and of which Al Biruni comments,
Quote:
«… all of which (the corruptions of the Moon) are not exclusively applicable to the Moon…»


Now if the truth were to be told, there are probably only two ‘corruptions’ that can truly be said to pertain to the Moon in particular: 1) its eclipses and 2) the Moon in the 9th (because it is opposed to the house of its ‘joy’).

Sahl also lists,

Quote:
« The ninth is when it is feral or void of course.»


Being void of course or feral was not a corruption of any planet in any author. It could have dire or unfortunate consequences for the native, election or question, but it doesn’t ‘corrupt’ a planet only the outcome! It only meant that planet was not engaged in any dealings with another! That can be both a good or bad thing! So it is important to distinguish what corrupts the essential nature of a planet and what may corrupt the result or outcome of their relationships.

Now we come to Sahl’s judgment concerning the Moon in Gemini,
Quote:
« The sixth is when it is in the twelfth sign from its own domicile, which is the sign Gemini,»


You won’t find this particular ‘corruption’ attributed by any other astrologer – at least not in this oversimplified form! This is where the subject deserves more discussion and clarification. I have to ask a lot of questions. Why does Sahl specify the 12th sign? If the particular corruption was because it was peregrine why not just say when in Gemini? And if that is the case why not mention Leo which is without a doubt both inconjunct to Cancer AND a place where the Moon most certainly has no testimony! Why is the Moon corrupt in the 12th from her own domicile? Is this true of the other planets or is it a particular of the Moon?

I can answer with some assurance that this is true of all the planets, and it applies to all the planets not only in the 12th from their domiciles but also the 2nd, 6th, and 8th from their domiciles. This was called “aversion” by the Hellenistic astrologers and one of the conditions for which a planet ‘fell amiss’. Aversion was translated as inconjunct by the Latin translators. And it was a serious condition with often dire results.

Paulus writes;
Quote:
«The position of the zôidia unconnected to one another has the numerical interval from 2, 6, 8, and 12, and the zôidia taken in such intervals are also averse to one another. And so the stars found in these zôidia become inharmonious. And sometimes they bring about hostile conditions, sometimes separations and banishments when such a condition has befallen all… »


In Valens, a planet found in aversion to its domicile could not distribute its planetary years in timing techniques; neither could its domicile distribute a number of years equal to its ascensional time.

In all the authors a planet could not be the predominator or Hyleg if one of its lords did not at least behold it.

In Masha’allah we find this further elucidated in On Reception when the ruler of the Ascendant (or querent) or the Moon had to behold the sign of the ascendant in order to qualify as significator.

While Al Biruni does not spell out in any uncertain terms the concept of aversion it is found in many places in his instructions. In his discussion concerning signs having equal power (equally ascending signs or contra-antiscia) and signs ‘like in course’ (antiscia signs) he writes,
Quote:
«But in the quartile aspect it occasionally happens from these agreements (antiscia/contra-antiscia) as in the case of Taurus to Aquarius and Leo to Scorpius by power (contra-antiscia-signs of equal ascension), and in that of Taurus to Leo and Scorpius to Aquarius by course (Antiscia signs), that the disagreeable enmity of the quartile lessens and its evil influence disappears, so that the significance of the relation gains in power, just as the removal of the inconjunction, obscurity and evil <is> from those sextiles and natural opposites also take place.»


Again later he says,
Quote:
«A planet on which a number of unfavourable conditions is heaped and in evil case on account of being combust or retrograde, or in its detriment or fall or in a cadent house, or inconjunct, or antagonised by infortunes, or whose aspects are inimical is said to be suspect [muttahim]… »


A planet which fell inconjunct or in aversion to its domicile was a serious impediment and this teaching is consistent and we find it even in Lilly,
Quote:
"We understand a Planet to be ill disposed, when Peregrine, Retrograde, Combust, Cadent from the Ascendant or house of the thing demanded, so that he beholds not the house, or at least the Lord of the house, in this nature the aspect to the house is better than to the Lord thereof;"


All of this in brief to say that Sahl is correct generally. A planet falling in the 12th from its domicile was in aversion to its domicile and seriously ill-disposed. Schmidt likened it to a boat lacking a helmsman!

But like just about every rule you want to list in astrology, there were always exceptions and mitigations of these particular impediments! In the case of aversion I already touched on one of the mitigations of the ‘evil’ of that condition in Al Biruni’s quote. A planet or planets in aversion could have ‘dealings’ with the sign it was in aversion to if both of the signs were antiscia signs, contra-antiscia signs or like-engirdling signs. The Moon’s aversion to Cancer is mitigated in Gemini because its influence is in the inverse degrees of Cancer! If Venus was in Libra, her aversion to Taurus (which is 8 signs away) was mitigated because both are her domicile and when a planet was in one domicile it did not need to ‘see’ the other. This was called ‘like-engirdling’. The same is true of Saturn in Aquarius or Capricorn and Mars in Scorpio whose other domicile Aries is in the 6th sign from it! Therefore we also find in Valens that if a planet fell in aversion to its domicile but happened to be in a sign of equal ascensions or antiscia sign then it could distribute its planetary years and its sign could distribute its years equal to its ascensional time! Because of these mitigations, Masha’allah therefore qualifies his demand for the ruler of the Ascendant or the Moon to behold the sign of the ascendant by saying that if they do fall in aversion but they are joined to a planet that does behold the sign of the ascendant, then they can still signify the matter of the querent!

In fact there are several mitigations of aversion, but I don’t have the time to go into them all now. So while I know Bonatti is ‘parroting’ Sahl, I don’t totally agree with Sahl that the 12th from the Moon’s domicile is a misfortune for the Moon! There is a fundamental underlying Sahl’s comment but his generalisation grossly neglects the multitude of particular variables determined to that fundamental teaching! This is a pitfall one has to watch for in reading the ancients because many times what they present in general terms happens to be true only in specific situations! In other words they are often a judgment arising from a particular, which is why I’m not the biggest fan of aphorisms <g>. They are not always universals and the author may be speaking from a particular experience.


Greetings,
Gpran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated