Tighter Natal aspects

[Barleywine]

The Sun is in the exaltation of Jupiter (Cancer) and Jupiter in Sagittarius a Fire sign, and the Day triplicity ruler of Fire is the Sun. So that gives a mutual reception and we should not treat the Sun as being Peregrine.

Is this an extrapolation of the idea of "essential dignity by exaltation"? Technically, wouldn't Jupiter have to be in Aries, the sign of the Sun's exaltation? But I can see the sense of using triplicity "by extension," I just couldn't get that idea out of the table of dignities. Perhaps I need better source material.

Again using your chart, Saturn is in the Terms (and Face) of Jupiter and Jupiter is in the Terms (and Face) of Saturn. So Saturn has a mutual reception and is not Peregrine.

This makes sense too, but I also couldn't get it out of the table. Is it described in detail somewhere?

However it's not clear to what extent traditional astrologers put weight on mutual receptions by minor dignities (Terms and Face) by Lilly's time. Certainly Morin did not put any weight on the minor dignities at all. So at best these type of mutual receptions might just cancel out being Peregrine but add no real dignity. I think it's a matter of testing to see if you end up giving too much weight or too little to essential dignities using mutual receptions by Terms and Face.

I can see where it would add enough dignity to erase being peregrine since, as you point out, the whole idea of weighting is to get a general idea of relative planetary strength. Anything that improves their mutual relationship would seem to be worth counting to some degree. Perhaps, given no other more potent dignity between the two, this more minor one would assume greater importance. They are also in trine by triplicity, although not partile. Jupiter would seem to have the upper hand, though, since it's in its sign of rulership and Saturn is in its detriment.

There's one further point on mutual receptions. If the two planets are essentially debilitated does this suddenly transform them into being essentially strong - for example I have Sun in Libra, the exaltation of Saturn and Saturn in Leo the rulership of the Sun. But Sun in Libra is in Fall (-4) and Saturn in Leo is in Detriment (-5) So how do I score the mutual reception. Do I treat both planets as now essentially strong or does it simply show two weak planets trying to do their best for each other? I don't think I can count the two as now very strong but I don't count them as being in Detriment and Fall. Perhaps treating them as having 0 essential dignity might be the best approach and then add on their accidental dignities for an overall score. But I have seen writers suddenly bumping up the dignities to being very strong and treating Saturn as though it were in exaltation and the Sun as though it were in Rulership.

I think it's the "blending" involved that makes this such an interesting subject for me. How much of one key quality (exaltation or rulership) is sufficient to cancel out an abundance of the other type (detriment or fall)? When both types are strong, it would seem to be best to take the essential dignity level to zero as you suggest and then tweak from there by observing the operation of any accidental dignities. That would make them peregrine. right? And all that entails regarding "learning opportunities" should be readily observable in the way the planetary functions are experienced.

The Moon is oriental, having passed it's opposition to the Sun (but only by a few degrees). The reason why the situation for the Moon is the opposite of the three superior planets is because the Moon is faster than the Sun but they are slower. So when the Moon is past the New Moon, stage it is further on in the zodiac than the Sun and moving away from it. When the three superiors are ahead of the Sun in the zodiac it's moving towards them.

I'm still struggling with Lilly on this one. He says ". . . orientality is nothing but to rise before the Sun and occidentality is to set after him, or to be seen above the horizon after the Sun is set." In the case of my Moon being just past the full phase, it would still be below the eastern horizon when the Sun sets in the west, seeming to make it occidental by this definition. Lilly also says "The Moon is oriental of the Sun from the time of her conjunction to the opposition, and occidental from the opposition to the conjunction." This would seem to reinforce the above, since the Moon is past the opposition and moving toward the next conjunction. Is he guilty of "bad science" here, or am I just reading him wrong?

For a freebie, Morinus is outstanding. I use it quite a bit, even though I have Solar Fire on my computer. You can also add and edit Arabic Parts. When you get to Primary Directions it becomes invaluable.

Planetary strength is identified by the author as still being on his "to do" list.

 

[Minderwiz]

Is this an extrapolation of the idea of "essential dignity by exaltation"? Technically, wouldn't Jupiter have to be in Aries, the sign of the Sun's exaltation? But I can see the sense of using triplicity "by extension," I just couldn't get that idea out of the table of dignities. Perhaps I need better source material.

Traditionally a mutual reception is when Planet A (e.g. Sun) is in any dignity of Planet B (e.g. Jupiter) and Planet B is in any of Planet A. With 5 essential dignities that gives 15 possible combinations,, only 5 of which are combinations with the same dignity for both planets. Now in your case:

The Sun is in Cancer, which is the exaltation of Jupiter

Jupiter is in Sagittarius which is a Fire sign and the Sun rules all the Fire signs by Day as the triplicity ruler. So Jupiter just has to be in any Fire sign to complete the mutual reception. Of course being in Sagittarius gives it additional essential dignity through rulership. Also if you were born after sunset, Jupiter would become the Fire triplicity ruler and the mutual reception would no longer hold.

Now one new consideration

Medieval writers clearly require that as well as the planets being in appropriate signs (or Terms or Faces) they also are in aspect to each other. That is there is no reception without an aspect. Later writers, including modern writers seem to go on sign position alone. In your chart Saturn and Jupiter on in trine, so that satisfies the strong view of mutual reception. The Sun and Jupiter have no major aspect, but they are linked by antiscia. I'm honestly not clear whether that qualifies as the strong view in an absolute sense because I've not seen a reference to that possibility, but I would personally treat it as such.

This makes sense too, but I also couldn't get it out of the table. Is it described in detail somewhere?

If you follow the link

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

You'll see that in Sagittarius the Terms of Saturn lie between 19 and 25 degrees and Jupiter is at 23 degrees, so it's in the Terms of Saturn. In Leo the Terms of Jupiter are between 19 and 25 degrees, so Saturn at 19 degrees 16 is in the Terms of Jupiter. So we have the mutual reception.

There's a short coverage in Frawley's Real Astrology, for a little more information on interpretation.

I can see where it would add enough dignity to erase being peregrine since, as you point out, the whole idea of weighting is to get a general idea of relative planetary strength. Anything that improves their mutual relationship would seem to be worth counting to some degree. Perhaps, given no other more potent dignity between the two, this more minor one would assume greater importance. They are also in trine by triplicity, although not partile. Jupiter would seem to have the upper hand, though, since it's in its sign of rulership and Saturn is in its detriment.

Jupiter is indeed the stronger of the two, and as it has a mutual reception from sign position with Saturn and a trine aspect, Jupiter is likely to be supportive of Saturn more than the other way around.

I think it's the "blending" involved that makes this such an interesting subject for me. How much of one key quality (exaltation or rulership) is sufficient to cancel out an abundance of the other type (detriment or fall)? When both types are strong, it would seem to be best to take the essential dignity level to zero as you suggest and then tweak from there by observing the operation of any accidental dignities. That would make them peregrine. right? And all that entails regarding "learning opportunities" should be readily observable in the way the planetary functions are experienced.

Well up to the point where you said 'that will make them peregrine....' I was agreeing with you If we accept the mutual reception on the basis of Terms then Saturn is not Peregrine (or the Sun in his mutual reception with Jupiter). Treat Sun and Saturn as being low powered in essential dignity but not debilitated and go by their accidental dignity.

I'm still struggling with Lilly on this one. He says ". . . orientality is nothing but to rise before the Sun and occidentality is to set after him, or to be seen above the horizon after the Sun is set." In the case of my Moon being just past the full phase, it would still be below the eastern horizon when the Sun sets in the west, seeming to make it occidental by this definition. Lilly also says "The Moon is oriental of the Sun from the time of her conjunction to the opposition, and occidental from the opposition to the conjunction." This would seem to reinforce the above, since the Moon is past the opposition and moving toward the next conjunction. Is he guilty of "bad science" here, or am I just reading him wrong?

On Page 114 Lilly actually says the Moon (he uses the glyph) is oriental of the Sun (glyph) from the time of her opposition to the conjunction (glyph) and occidental from the time of the conjunction to the opposition (using glyphs).

He also says 'to be oriental is no other thing than to rise before the Sun' The problem is that we need to be clear about what this means. In your case the Moon will rise just after sunset and of course it will rise in the East but it's seen above the horizon after sunset so that will seem to qualify it as occidental on Lilly's 'simple' definition. I think this is a case of trying to give a simple definition for Mercury and Venus without considering at that point the more complex issues for the superior planets and the Moon. In the Mercury and Venus cases, 'oriental'l means seen in the Eastern sky (just before sunrise) and 'occidental' means seen in the Western sky (just after sunset) and I think the issue for the other planets is more where are they seen when above the horizon (and the Sun is below it).

This is not easily answered in a complete way, because a planet can be seen firstly in the East and then move to the West, so it's seen in both hemispheres. There's a second system that Ptolemy uses wherein a planet is considered oriental if it's between the Ascendant and the MC, or the Descendant and the IC, at sunrise Sun on the Ascendant). A planet is occidental if between the MC and Descendant or between IC and Ascendant at sunrise. That makes a workable way of deciding the situation for the superiors (and arguably the Moon). On this definition the Moon would be occidental (though this system seems only to have been used for the three Superior planets (remember that for Astrology the Moon is below the orbits of Venus and Mercury.

There is a clearly implied third system in Lilly. Is the planet heading for combustion or not? With the three planets that are faster than the Sun, (Venus, Mercury and Moon), they are approaching combustion when they are moving towards the Sun (ignoring retrograde motion). For Mercury and Venus, when direct, this will be when they rise just before the Sun (they are oriental) and for the Moon when it is past the opposition (also defined as oriental) So for all three, 'oriental' is a situation where when direct (Moon is always direct) they are moving towards the Sun. Occidental is defined as a situation where they are direct and moving away from the Sun. So the Moon seems to get it's orientality from it's speed (and direction) relative to the Sun.

For the superior planets, the opposite holds. The Sun is faster than them, so following the conjunction the Sun is moving away from them till it reaches the opposition.

I agree that these two systems and the impled third are not consistent, at least from our heliocentric perspective. It's possible that the inconsistency is a product of the geocentric view of Astrology but that's more a guess on my part than something that is clearly confirmed.

 

[Barleywine]

On Page 114 Lilly actually says the Moon (he uses the glyph) is oriental of the Sun (glyph) from the time of her opposition to the conjunction (glyph) and occidental from the time of the conjunction to the opposition (using glyphs).

Serves me right for quoting James Wilson quoting Lilly; he seems to warp some facts to fit his own agenda. This definition would make my Moon oriental as you said earlier, and increasingly more visible as such as it passes the last quarter and creeps up on the new moon (thus being higher in the daytime sky as the Sun rises). It only seems confusing when it's still very close to the full moon.

This is not easily answered in a complete way, because a planet can be seen firstly in the East and then move to the West, so it's seen in both hemispheres. There's a second system that Ptolemy uses wherein a planet is considered oriental if it's between the Ascendant and the MC, or the Descendant and the IC, at sunrise Sun on the Ascendant). A planet is occidental if between the MC and Descendant or between IC and Ascendant at sunrise. That makes a workable way of deciding the situation for the superiors (and arguably the Moon). On this definition the Moon would be occidental (though this system seems only to have been used for the three Superior planets (remember that for Astrology the Moon is below the orbits of Venus and Mercury.

I did see this one, but was following the seemingly more sensible approach of "oriental or occidental to the Sun." If a planet (or the Moon) is still seen in the western sky when the Sun crosses the eastern horizon, it would seem to be "ahead of the Sun" during that 12-hour period and would therefore be oriental. That would be the case with my Moon if the chart is rotated so the Sun at 0 degrees Cancer is on the Ascendant. Having risen after the Sun, all of the other planets would still be seen in the evening sky right after sunset at 0 Cancer, and would therefore be occidental. This seems counter-intuitive when the Moon is west of the MC at sunrise (as in my case) and when the planets are east of the MC at sunset (like my Jupiter); it seems Ptolemy would agree.

There is a clearly implied third system in Lilly. Is the planet heading for combustion or not? With the three planets that are faster than the Sun, (Venus, Mercury and Moon), they are approaching combustion when they are moving towards the Sun (ignoring retrograde motion). For Mercury and Venus, when direct, this will be when they rise just before the Sun (they are oriental) and for the Moon when it is past the opposition (also defined as oriental) So for all three, 'oriental' is a situation where when direct (Moon is always direct) they are moving towards the Sun. Occidental is defined as a situation where they are direct and moving away from the Sun. So the Moon seems to get it's orientality from it's speed (and direction) relative to the Sun.

Yes, this is how I understand it now.