Why are Essential Dignities so inconsistent in their placements?

Darth MI

I am wondering. You'd think signs that are exalted would be signs that share a lot in common with the planet and fall would be signs that don't.

Venus in Pisces matches that expectations as it has a lot in common with Venus from artistry to romanticness.

However other placements are contradictory.

For example Capricorn is exalted in Mars. But what does Capricorn have in common with the Martian nature? The Martian nature is aggressive and fiery, something Capricorn is not. Furthermore the hobbies associated with Mars such as sports and militarism is not Capricorns cup of tea.

Another example is Scorpio being in its fall in the moon. Isn't Scorpio emotional and watery? Shouldn't the moon be a good placement?

Yet Aries is exalted in the Sun and this perfectly match the Aries nature (particularly the Sun's extroverted somewhat lax and childish nature).

It also makes total sense Capricorn is in its fall in Jupiter as Capricorn is too pessimistic and cynical for the Jupiterian nature.

Why are essential dignities so inconsistent with their associations in placements? What is exactly the reason why the Sun is in its exaltation in Aries but Mars is in its exaltation in Capricorn, not with Leo or Sagittarius like one expects? Why does Scorpio fall in the emotional moon while Cancer is exhausted in the vibrant spirited Jupiter?
 

Larxene

This assumes that the exaltation dignity was based on the zodiac signs. I do not think this was the case.

One theory I heard of is that exaltation was based on the declination of the planets. The highest position of a star is its exaltation, the lowest position is its fall. This is relative to the northern hemisphere, because most of the ancients who worked with astrology lived in the north.


EDIT:

Note that so far I have not read about zodiac signs being given human characteristics in the ancient texts, except for a few exceptions. For example, I have seen Capricorn being described as "a sign for hunchbacks", "persons who toil", but that's pretty much it.

So perhaps it is simply the modern characterisation of the zodiac signs that are inconsistent with the ancient concept of exaltation.
 

Minderwiz

When I started out in the Tradition, the accepted theory was that the exaltations predated Sign rulership and was of Babylonian origin. The exact reasons for them were lost in time but were related to their declinations - a fair account of this is given by Lee Lehman in her book on Essential Dignities.

In recent years this theory has been revised. Firstly Robert Schmidt has pointed out that using the Thema Mundi, all the exaltations are configured to the Ascendant (Cancer) by a major aspect. The Thema Mundi is a Hellenistic invention. Now, that could be pure coincidence and still leave the exaltations of Babylonian origin.

However, more recently, Brennan and Dykes have pointed out that each planet's exaltation is aspected to a sign of its rulership.

In the case of the nocturnal planets, Moon, Venus and Mars, for all three this configuration is by a sextile:

Moon: Cancer to Taurus
Venus: Taurus to Pisces
Mars: Scorpio to Capricorn

In the case of the diurnal planets, this configuration is by trine:

Sun: Leo to Aries
Jupiter: Pisces to Cancer
Saturn: Aquarius to Libra

The planet without natural sect is Mercury and that has one of its own signs for exaltation (Virgo}.

They argue that this, coupled with Schmidt's observation cannot be put down to coincidence. The exaltations are Hellenistic and are (like the rest of the system) the product of deliberate design.

Their case is not without some criticism. For the nocturnal planets, two of the exaltations (Moon and Venus) are in diurnal motion - they are dexter sextiles, But the exaltation of Mars is a sinister sextile - it goes in the order of signs.

For the dirunal planets, their explanation only works by allowing the exaltation of Jupiter to depend on its nocturnal domicile. To aggrevate the matter, Jupiter's exaltation is a sinister trine, the other two are dexter trines.

Surely a designed system would suggest Mars exaltation in Virgo and Jupiter's exalation in Leo (from Sagittarius). Now on Schmidt's argument that would leave Jupiter's exatation in aversion to the Cancer Ascendant. That would give a valid reason for shifting Jupiter's exaltation to being based on its noctunal house.

However, a Mars exaltation of Virgo would still be configured to the Ascendant. Shifting Mercury's exaltation to Gemini would leave it averse.

So it seems that both conditions, the configuration to the Ascendant and the configuration to a domicile are required for the system to work.

I agree with Larxene about them not taking 'personality' into existence. Certainly this system was set up before the elements were incorporated into Astrology. Valens does give some 'personal' attributes to the signs (but he is using them as the Ascendants of people) and, of course Valens was the one who explicitly introduced the elements into Astrology.
 

Darth MI

Another QUestion

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation as wel as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

This confuses modern astrologers so much there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So the signs actually aspect the planet-except just using the "secondary rulers" as we call them in astrology.

So its the lack of elements that is why Moon is in its fall in Scorpio?
 

Minderwiz

Why could some planets be both in its domicile and exaltation as wel as detriment and fall in the same sign?

Mercury is both domicile and exalted in Virgo while Mercury in Pisces is both in its detriment and fall.

This confuses modern astrologers so much there have been attempts to place Mercury as exalted in Aquarius instead and its Fall in Leo.

So the signs actually aspect the planet-except just using the "secondary rulers" as we call them in astrology.

So its the lack of elements that is why Moon is in its fall in Scorpio?

Firstly, it's nothing to do with the elements. The system of rulerships and exaltations predate the introduction of elements into Astrology. If anything, the elements were tailored to the rulerships.

Secondly, only Mercury has a rulership and exaltation in the same sign. None of the others do. Mercury is a special case, as the other six traditional planets have what I might call, 'essential sect'. That is their sect is inherent in the planet. For example, Venus is inherently a nocturnal planet, whilst Jupiter is inherently a diuranal, one,in any chart. It does not matter whether the chart is diurnal or nocturnal, nor where they are placed in the chart

Mercury, however can belong to either sect depending on it's position in the chart. If Mercury rises before the Sun, then it is diurnal. If it sets after the Sun, then it is nocturnal. We need to examine the chart before we can say what sect Mercury belongs to (or at least examine it's zodiacal placement relative to the Sun).;

Given, that Mercury has no 'essential sect' then the it cannot fit into a system that requires the sign of exaltation to be either sextile to one of its domiciles (nocturnal) or trine to one of its domiciles (diurnal) because we just don't know which it is, till we see the chart.

Of course it could be in a sign that is square to one of it's domiciles. The squares for Gemini are:

Dexter: Pisces
Sinister: Virgo

And the squares for Virgo are:

Dexter: Gemini
Sinister: Sagittarius

Pisces is the exaltation of Venus and it is also the detriment of Mercury from its sign of Virgo. Sagittarius, has no exalted planet but it is the detriment of Mercury from it's sign of Gemini.

So if we were to use squares, to solve the problem, we are left with either Gemini or Virgo. Both of which are Mercury's domiciles. As stated above, Gemini doesn't satisfy Schmidt's criterion that the sign of exaltation should aspect the Cancer Ascendant of the Thema Mundi.

If you think about it, we have also eliminated the opposition as a possible aspect. Both Pisces and Sagittarius are detriments of Mercury and it would be illogical to have a sign in which a planet was both in exaltation and in detriment.

That being said, It is possible for a planet to be in one of the lesser dignities and yet still be in fall, for example Venus in Scorpio in a Day chart is in fall, but it is also the Water Triplicity Ruler (early Hellenistic writers would have said in the Trigon Cancer/Scorpio/Pisces), of which it is the diurnal triplicity (trigon) ruler. You will also find examples of planets being in detriment or fall and having essential dignity through bounds or decan.

There's a theory that the Triplicity rulerships were a separate and competing system to the sign rulerships/exaltations that was eventually incorporated into the system as lesser dignities. There's no clear proof of that, so at the moment it remains speculation, or at least an untested hypothesis.

Incidentally, the attempt to put Mercury's exaltation in Aquarius, is not completely silly. However it does assume two things. Firstly that Mercury is inherently diurnal (whilst modern writers may recognise the traditional view of Mercury as hermaphroditic, they no attention to sect and most of them have never heard of it). Secondly, the placement in Aquarius would put Mercury's exaltation in the eighth house of the Thema Mundi and therefore averse to the Cancer Ascendant. There again, most modern Astrologers have never heard of the Thema Mundi and would probably regard it as a quaint relic if they had. Yet it seems to have a strong case as the basis of the system of rulership and exaltations. Used in conjunction with the Planetary Joys, it explains much of our system of Astrology, including much of modern usage.