Theory on Elements and Modes

Darth MI

There's a theory about the nature of elements and modes I found online.



Basically it states although a sign like Virgo may be mutuable, Virgo may come off as fixed since its Earth sign until you study the sign into proportion with the other Earth signs. Scorpio may be fixed, but it has mutuable elements such as transformation since its a water sign.



Here's the overall theory.



All Earth signs are somewhat fixed because of the rigid nature of Earth element.



All Water signs are somewhat mutuable because of water shifting its shape to match its surrounding environment.



All Fire are cardinal to an extent because of the extroverted and aggressive nature of flames.



Air signs go into extreme depending on the mode. Aquarius is stubborn at its core, Libra is outstanding at leadership, and Gemini is fastest in changing itself to adapt to the environment.



How does this theory match traditional astrology dogma? Its quite common on an internet searchbar to find this theory and even modern books state it (or at least imply it).
 

Larxene

Elements


Much of the astrology after the Hellenistic period follows the Aristotelian theory of the elements, due to Ptolemy's major influence, although if I recall, Ptolemy never mentioned anything about "elements"; he simply associated the trigons or triplicities with the Aristotelian qualities of heat, cold, dryness and moisture.

Apparently, the association of signs with elements seems to be relatively recent, after Ptolemy at least, as both Manilius and Ptolemy did not mention anything about elements. The earliest mention of elements came from Valens, around the 2nd century AD. I'm not sure about Dorotheus.


So anyway, the Aristotelian theory of elements goes like this:


1. There are four qualities: heat, cold, dry and wet. Heat and cold are opposites, while dryness and moisture are opposites.

2. Heat is the principle of activity and energy, while cold embodies the principle of inactivity and lethargy. Dryness promotes separation, while moisture encourages union.

3. We can explain this using concrete examples. Hot air rises due to the energy it contains; cold air has less energy, therefore it stays down. That is why we can float in the air using a hot air balloon. Most liquids can be mixed with other liquids, because their moisture allows them to be united (although "union" does not imply "chemical union"; some+ liquids do not form compounds, water and oil for instance.) However, try placing ice cubes next to each other. They would not combine, due to their solid and dry state. I believe we learned these things in chemistry/physics class.

4. Each element has two of these qualities. Fire is hot and dry. Water is the opposite of Fire, cold and wet. Air is hot and wet. Earth is the opposite of Air, cold and dry.



Modes


My understanding of the ancient perception of "Modes" is this:

a) Tropical/Cardinal - events associated with tropical signs either tend to break off before completion and have to be repeated or the situation reverses and does not allow completion
b) Solid - events under solid signs tend to come to completion with a permanent result
c) Two-bodied/Mutable - two-bodied events come to completion, but only after a digression.

Tropical and mutable signs are both "changeable", but there is a difference. With tropical signs, the EVENTS themselves are liable to change, whereas with mutable signs, it is their MODE that is liable to change.

So mutable signs sometimes bring forth events of a tropical nature, and sometimes they create events of a solid nature, and sometimes the events will be both tropical and solid in nature: changing in the beginning, permanent at the end, or vice versa.
 

Minderwiz

The problem with making any pronouncement about Hellenistic Astrology is that we have so little of it still extant. So every statement has to be qualified with that context. However, that being said, Larxene gives a very good summary of what we do know.

Indeed as far as the elements go, Hellenistic Astrology is something of a mess. Of 14 prominent writers who we have texts from, only 4 explicitly ling the Triplicities and the elements. As Larxene says, Valens seems to be the first to make this connection and he was writing c175 AD. Ptolemy who in part he overlaps makes no reference. Even after Valens, the split is around 50/50 right through to Rhetorious who is probably seventh century (though this is by no means agreed).

By the time of the Persian and then Arab Astrologers (from about the ninth century) the link is clear and is never really questioned thereafter. However the Arab Astrologers, seem not to have had as many texts to go off as we have and Ptolemy again seems to be the dominant one (despite Ptolemy's silence on the elements and triplicities or trigons). The Arab use of Hot/Cold and Moist/Dry in connection with the elements is something that does not occur before them and seems to be an attempt at resolving the Aristotelian and Stoic philosophical approaches to Astrology.

In contrast the Modes/Quadruplicities seem to have been there from the very start and seem to be related to and derived from the seasons of the year. Thus Autumn Solid Sign, Scorpio opposes Spring Solid Sign Taurus and Summer Tropical Sign, Cancer opposes Winter Tropical Sign, Capricorn.

Attempts to merge both the Quadrulicities and the Triplicities that Barkey refers to seem to me to show something of a misunderstanding of the nature of the Tropical/Solid/Double Bodies division.