Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello all,

generally a planet in his fall or in his detriment is considered to be weak, malefic or at least in some way corrupted. When we see a Mercury in his detriment in Sagittarius, we normally expect some problems or trouble with his expression.

Now, what I find interesting but at the same time confusing, are the descriptions of Mercury in the sign of Jupiter as given by the ancients (or at least by most of them). E.g. we can read in Dorotheus:

If Mercury is in Jupiter`s house or term, he will possess dignity, [be] an orator, or control of the affairs of kings or nobles, or instruct the people in words and arguments and judgments, and he will always be about business of metropolises or kings.

Another example is Masha`allah who says:

If he were in the domicile of Jupiter, he will mingled with princes and businessmen, and he will have a mandated authority or prefecture in the works of princes, and he will be wise in the prefecture, a judge in good faith or trustfulness

We can find similar statements about planets in their fall, e.g. the Sun in Libra oder Venus in Virgo.

It seems to me, that these delineations of a planet in his detriment do not really correspond to the common or accepted traditional opinion of a weak or corrupted planet.

Can somebody help me with this contradiction? How do you deal with this ambiguity?

Hello, Jogi

First of all, I don't think there's any ambiguity concerning these statements and traditional teaching about the corruptness of the planets in their detriment/fall because the examples you've provided are just aphorisms and aphorisms have a tendency of being too simplistic and one sided in their emphasis of planetary quality/behavior.
There are so many factors to be taken into account when delineating specific planetary position - the aphorisms such as these should only be used as a general guidelines, not as a stand-alone rules to be followed blindly.
Let's take this Mercury in Sagittarius for example - as far as I understand it, Mercury is being referred to(in both statements) as a signifier of profession.But what if in someone's chart this same Mercury sits in the 12th, disposed by Jupiter in Taurus in the 6th(aversion) and let's say, separates from Mars and applies to Saturn in the 12th and the chart is nocturnal? Let us also assume Mercury rules the 7th and the 9th houses...he cannot possibly have anything to do with someone's profession then, right? and most certainly, we wouldn't expect someone with such a placement of Mercury to

possess dignity, [be] an orator, or control of the affairs of kings or nobles, or instruct the people in words and arguments and judgments, and he will always be about business of metropolises or kings.

I presume that the positive traits attributed to this position of Mercury stem from the fact that he is in the house of a beneficial planet Jupiter, but this is nevertheless his detriment so we might expect his sloppiness when it comes to ability of measuring/communicating/negotiating/calculating precisely, taking care of important details,distinctions,etc.
On the other hand, this kind of Mercury may undoubtedly show fantastic results if he's angular/succeedent(5th or 11th), aspected by essentially/accidentally fortified Jupiter, his ruler, and the same goes for the rest of the planets that may form a positive aspectual relationship with him, etc.
As always in astrology, everything depends upon the context within which we are working and nothing is only black or white - there are many shades of grey which have to be taken into account if we desire to delineate a certain element of the chart correctly.
Hope this helps you somewhat in your dilemma.

Greetings,
Goran

Hello Goran

cor scorpii wrote: First of all, I don't think there's any ambiguity concerning these statements and traditional teaching about the corruptness of the planets in their detriment/fall because the examples you've provided are just aphorisms and aphorisms have a tendency of being too simplistic and one sided in their emphasis of planetary quality/behavior.

I agree too.
At least for me I found difficult even finding a way in Ptolemy which is quite "compact" in the things he writes, he follows his mental thread from the fisrt to the last, aphorisms for me are very confusing.

As I mentioned in the thread about the murderers of the spouse about Cardano's ones, it's difficult to understand from they come, and what the author is thinking when he wrote. A card of someone he knows? Something else?
And the same with the rest of authors who wrote in aphorims.
I don't not like them .
I prefer a more articulate way of writing.

I presume that the positive traits attributed to this position of Mercury stem from the fact that he is in the house of a beneficial planet Jupiter, but this is nevertheless his detriment so we might expect his sloppiness when it comes to ability of measuring/communicating/negotiating/calculating precisely, taking care of important details,distinctions,etc.
On the other hand, this kind of Mercury may undoubtedly show fantastic results if he's angular/succeedent(5th or 11th), aspected by essentially/accidentally fortified Jupiter, his ruler, and the same goes for the rest of the planets that may form a positive aspectual relationship with him, etc.

I completely agree. I would not tell better.
Some combination of Mercury are awful. in a cadent house, or mixed with Mars (it makes the thieves and liars) or in combination with Venus and Mars when it makes the public scandal.

With Jupiter- I always should mention Ptolemy because even if according Holden (see recent post by Mark) Ptolemy took a couple of books from a public library of Alexandria and wrote a summary of astrology without any interest, his Tetrabiblos was commented and commented by ll the most important astrologers of all the time.

Jupiter having the dominion - domicile and exaltation included- of the mind (i.e on MERCURY and Moon) when ill-disposed turns all the good qualities of Jupiter in the dark side, knowledge becomes arrogance, good manners and quiet temperament in folly, as Ptolemy says all qualities similar to Jupiterian ones, but void, exagerate, without virtue.


Believe me I met someone exactly like that, it's difficult to explain, if one never met someone like that: an inflation of the ego, not a real stupidity, which is very near to folly.

margherita

Jogi wrote:Hello all,

generally a planet in his fall or in his detriment is considered to be weak, malefic or at least in some way corrupted. When we see a Mercury in his detriment in Sagittarius, we normally expect some problems or trouble with his expression.

It depends. The question is: how much harm can a planet like Jupiter or Venus do when ill-dignified (in their fall or detriment) and how much good can Mars or Saturn do when essentially dignified?

My understanding is that Venus and Jupiter cannot do much harm either way. On the other hand, an essentially dignified Saturn can do much good through Saturnian ways (which are not always pleasant), whilst in its detriment or fall, it can become even more malefic.

Jogi wrote:E.g. we can read in Dorotheus:

If Mercury is in Jupiter`s house or term, he will possess dignity, [be] an orator, or control of the affairs of kings or nobles, or instruct the people in words and arguments and judgments, and he will always be about business of metropolises or kings.

Another example is Masha`allah who says:

If he were in the domicile of Jupiter, he will mingled with princes and businessmen, and he will have a mandated authority or prefecture in the works of princes, and he will be wise in the prefecture, a judge in good faith or trustfulness

In both cases the principle here is that Mercury makes requests of Jupiter and Jupiter is in the role of "oikodektor" which means that Jupiter is in the role of "listener" as a steward/host of the sign. As Jupiter is generally a benefic, if it is able to provide as a host, then it does what is said above according to its own nature, but much depends upon what state Jupiter is in as others have said above.

In the Hellenistic literature, the idea of "detriment" is not present at least formally. Schmidt says that there is the sense that being as far away from one's own sign as possible (as in being opposite its rulership) is not a good thing, but there was no technical term for that at that time.

Hello Jogi,
I totally agree with Goran that aphorisms should not be taken literally (and no traditional astrologers do so by the way which I am pretty sure that you don?t as well). It is my strong believe that the ancients created these aphorisms (or yogas in Vedic astrology) for the established students of astrology and not as introductory materials, premises or axioms for ?Astrology 101? course. These aphorisms are actually ?know-how? and not knowledge (knowledge as of basic premises that can be applied almost universally). Socrates (and of course Plato) mocked the people who only learn ?know-hows? without going deeper into knowledge itself (which happens to be many of the sophists during Socrates? times who were supposedly pedlars of knowledge or wisdom but actually were pedlars of ?know-hows?). Studying the knowledge of astrology is definitely much more difficult than the know-how of astrology (which I am still struggling and I suspect it takes more than a few life times!). Anyway, I digress...

Back to your quandary, I myself had (and still have!) this problem when reading the texts of the ancients. We can?t ask them so we?ll have to make do. You have a given a very good example i.e. Mercury in the domicile of Jupiter. Mercury must be either in detriment or in fall when it is in the domicile of Jupiter. As in many principles of astrology, here we seem to have a contradiction. A planet in the domicile of Jupiter should be good (as Mercury is in the house of a benefic). A planet in detriment or fall is usually delineated as being ?not good?. How do we reconcile this ?seemingly? contradictory propositions? An uninitiated modern astrologer (or even non-astrologer) might say that this is one of the many proofs that traditional astrology (or even astrology) is wrong. Others might resolve to the ?principle of inadequacy of information? and say that we need more information before we could actually delineate the configuration and they would be right though we should still be able to say something general, if not particular, about this configuration. For me, I would resolve to what I call the ?principle of segregation of effects?. The different dimensions of a planet or planetary configurations are used in different areas of life ? hence, the seemingly contradictory principles are probably just contra-distinctions and not contradictions. The detriment or fall effect and being in the domicile of benefic should be applied in different areas of life. When we look at a planet, the ancients did say that we must be wary of the planet?s essential nature (benefic or malefic), its sect, its phase, whether direct or retrograde, whether faster or slower than its mean motion, whether combust/under the beams/cazimi, the sign it is in i.e. in whose domicile, its essential dignities ( as well as the element of the sign, the mode of the sign, the gender of the sign, the sect of the sign, etc.), its accidental dignities, relationship with other planets, houses and lots, blab bla bla. Now Mercury represents many things in life (it has to because we have only 7 planets and 7,000 different things in life!). Do we use all of the above mentioned configurations of Mercury to delineate all of the things that Mercury represent? Of course not! We would select the few most important configurations for different areas of life that Mercury represents. Hence, the very first thing that we must do is to list the important areas that Mercury represents in chart (this is what many call the problem significations). Then we delineate that part of life that Mecury signifies using the selected configurations that are important for that area of life. To make things a little bit more complicated, each of the different configurations of Mercury has plural meanings attached to them e.g. combust Mercury in its own domicile may mean a successful clandestine career (if Mercury happens to signify profession), or one who elopes happily (if Mercury happens to signify marriage), etc. By the way, Mercury in Virgo is probably good for Virgoan profession which requires analyses but not good for relationship because relationship needs stability not critical analyses all the time! Observe how the essentially dignified Mercury has different meanings for the different significations of Mercury. Similarly, one configuration might be important in one area of life while not so important in others e.g. Mercury moving faster than its mean motion may not be so important in describing his relationship (if Mercury signifies relationship) but may be very important in describing his discursive thinking (if Mercury happens to signify the native?s thinking in particular).

If we were to read Mathesis, Liber Hermetis and many ancient books, they would refer to planets in the domicile of others. The two quotes that you (Jogi) gave are similar in their delineation. So, perhaps we should read what they are trying to say (the principle or premise behind the aphorism) rather than what they apparently are saying. Reading both the quotes, we may say that for delineation of profession (if Mercury happens to rule profession), the domicile ruler of the sign where Mercury is in is more important that it being detriment or fall. Hence, the delineation of ?relatively good? prognostication is given to Mercury in Jupiter?s domiciles. Why ?relatively good?? I would say that the ancients were particularly careful with their delineations in the above quotes. Now, Mercury (by nature) is a servant or the subdued planet as it is a planet that is always near the sun (always subject to sun). Debilitated Mercury will result in being in service to others (which, on its own, is not so good). In the domicile of a greater benefic (Jupiter) is good because it makes the native mingle with the nobles. See, the ancients did not say that the native would be great by their own doing (you need dignity for this!). Instead, they become great on account of being in service (detriment/fall) to other nobilities or even noble principles (in the domicile of greater benefic, Jupiter) ? but they still receive benefits from these nobilities or noble principles although you?ll have to judge Jupiter?s dignities and relationship to Mercury to delineate this.

Hello Astrojin

astrojin wrote: Back to your quandary, I myself had (and still have!) this problem when reading the texts of the ancients. We can?t ask them so we?ll have to make do. You have a given a very good example i.e. Mercury in the domicile of Jupiter. Mercury must be either in detriment or in fall when it is in the domicile of Jupiter. As in many principles of astrology, here we seem to have a contradiction. A planet in the domicile of Jupiter should be good (as Mercury is in the house of a benefic). A planet in detriment or fall is usually delineated as being ?not good?. How do we reconcile this ?seemingly? contradictory propositions?

Yes, it's contradictory, think how well Mercury is in the sign of the "malefics":

There is the very famous quote from Centiloquium, everybody repeats:

38. When Mercury shall be well fortified or placed in either of the houses of Saturn in any one's nativity, the native hath a divining soul, and is capable of prying far into matters; if he be placed in the house of Mars, especially in Aries, he inclines to eloquence.

Especially for Saturn, I would say, it's one of the best position for Mercury.

Instead, they become great on account of being in service (detriment/fall) to other nobilities or even noble principles (in the domicile of greater benefic, Jupiter) ? but they still receive benefits from these nobilities or noble principles although you?ll have to judge Jupiter?s dignities and relationship to Mercury to delineate this.

I don't agree here, better I don't exclude the effects you mention, but following Ptolemy, as I mentioned above, I see a Mercury ruled by Jupiter in another way. As Goran said if Jupiter is well placed, everything is ok, but if not in good condition makes arrogance, incapacity to see the truth because blinded by ego, vainglory and vanity; as Ptolemy says like Jupiter but without its virtues.

Not always Jupiter works for good; think to Pisces, which is Jupiter sign, and how they fit with phlegmatic temperament, selfish, concentrated on themselves.....very different from the picture of modern astrology and "feeling"

margherita

Thank you all for your interesting and helpful responses .

Hi Goran,

As always in astrology, everything depends upon the context within which we are working and nothing is only black or white - there are many shades of grey which have to be taken into account if we desire to delineate a certain element of the chart correctly.

I also totally agree with that and usually I see these aphorisms as general orientations. On the other hand I would like to seek (and find) the underlying astrological principles behind these aphorisms - and it was always my opinion, that these principles are present in them and that the ancients used the aphorisms to express them.

It is truly possible that the aphorisms about Mercury in the signs of Jupiter were meant as a professional delineation, as you said. But my hope was or is, that this also reveals something more general about the combination of a certain planet in a certain sign. And maybe I was wrong when I supposed, that these aphorisms should in some way mirror the common teachings of the ancients.

The texts put quite a lot of stress on the position of a planet in his fall or in a sign opposite to his domicile. Such a constellation has always been depicted as unlucky, detrimental and were seen as a weakness for a planet e.g. in Sahl, The Introduction, ?5.15 or in his Judgment No. 9.
The same in Bonatti, p. 243 or in Al Biruni, p.46 etc.

But I`d like to point out right on the beginning: I feel much more comfortable with the statements and opinions you and the others gave me

But what if in someone's chart this same Mercury sits in the 12th, disposed by Jupiter in Taurus in the 6th(aversion) and let's say, separates from Mars and applies to Saturn in the 12th and the chart is nocturnal? Let us also assume Mercury rules the 7th and the 9th houses...he cannot possibly have anything to do with someone's profession then, right?

Your example is very interesting - but there you already combine essential and accidental dignities. When I read Zoller e.g., it seems quite clear to me that the sign position alone can give me a lot of information about the quality of a planet`s expression and he teaches, that a planet in his detriment/fall (as with Mercury in Sagittarius) is not able to completely realize what he promises. Besides, he adds the aspects and the condition of the planet`s dispositor to evaluate this qualitative status of the planet.

Let's take this Mercury in Sagittarius for example - as far as I understand it, Mercury is being referred to(in both statements) as a signifier of profession.

As I mentioned above, this is possible, yes. But to serve well as a professional significator, Mercury also has to be in a good condition and following the other statements of the ancients about detriment/fall, for Mercury in Sagittarius it shouldn`t be possible to be as good a prof. signif. as mentioned in these aphorisms.
These aphorisms only makes sense, when I assume that all the other conditions for Mercury are also very lucky and profitable i.e. good aspects, in a good house and ruling good houses, not besieged or combust and so on.

but this is nevertheless his detriment so we might expect his sloppiness when it comes to ability of measuring/communicating/negotiating/calculating precisely, taking care of important details,distinctions,etc.

That`s the way I see it too.


Hi Margherita,

And the same with the rest of authors who wrote in aphorims. I don't not like them. I prefer a more articulate way of writing.

Here I`m totally at one with you


Hi Alchemist,

My understanding is that Venus and Jupiter cannot do much harm either way.

I`m not so sure about that - sometimes love or lust can kill you.


Hi Curtis,

but much depends upon what state Jupiter is in as others have said above.

Yes, this is also what Zoller says when he stresses the importance of a planet`s dispositor.

In the Hellenistic literature, the idea of "detriment" is not present at least formally.

Right, and it still wasn`t in the early medieval area. Sahl says on the weakness of the planets: "The tenth, if the planets impeded themselves: that is if they were in the opposition of their own domiciles (which is a certain impediment to them)."


Hi Astrojin,

aphorisms should not be taken literally ...These aphorisms are actually ?know-how? and not knowledge

Yes, I agree. But my hope was, that these "know-how-aphorisms" can uncover part of the knowledge behind them. Or that they at least are in line with the common teachings of the ancients (see above: Bonatti, Sahl etc. about fall/detriment). But obviously they are not.

...we should still be able to say something general, if not particular, about this configuration.

This is my idea, too. And in some way I understand Zoller`s teachings going in this direction, when he says, that a planet in detriment or fall is not able to fully give what he promises, or that the results are not lasting etc.
Much of my responses to your answer I already said above so that there is nothing left over but to thank you for your inspiring thoughts and your demonstrative examples.

Jogi wrote:I`m not so sure about that - sometimes love or lust can kill you.

Yes, but in order for that to happen, Venus will need a little (or lots of) help from her friends, Mars and Saturn (if you know what I mean).

Jogi wrote:
I`m not so sure about that - sometimes love or lust can kill you.


Yes, but in order for that to happen, Venus will need a little (or lots of) help from her friends, Mars and Saturn (if you know what I mean).

Hello, Alchemist

I have to disagree with what you've written regarding the benefics' ability to kill(literally or symbolically speaking) - either Jupiter or Venus are surely able to do that when they rule the 8th, they don't need any help from the malefics. The same goes when they rule the other bad houses, the 12th or the 6th, or the 7th/4th for that matter; in Ramesey's words

"...for every planet must perform that whereunto it is ordained..."

Cheers,
Goran

The lord of the 8th cannot kill by itself. It needs help from the malefics, the nodes and the evil houses. It takes much more than an unfortunate direction or progression of the lord of the 8th, to kill.

Furthermore, I would be surprised if it was found that neither Mars, nor Saturn were involved in death of any kind (or at least the 4th, 6th and 12th houses in addition to the 8th). Generally, as the ancients have delivered (refer to Bonatti's aphorism #12), Venus and Jupiter cannot and rarely do harm by themselves, even when ill-dignified. There have to be other factors in the picture.



Best regards,
A.

Hello, Alchemist

The lord of the 8th cannot kill by itself. It needs help from the malefics, the nodes and the evil houses. It takes much more than an unfortunate direction or progression of the lord of the 8th, to kill.

Ok, let's start wth the first sentence in this qote. Would you be so kind and explain to us which astrologer asserts such a thing(possibly with a quote)? I'm going to give you some examples stating the clear opposite of what you've written.

Masha'allah:

Therefore, the Sun also signified health and prosperity, according to the Command of God, because of Jupiter's receiving which received the Sun. If Jupiter had not received the Sun, this would have been a testimony of death because Jupiter was the lord of death. When the lord of the house of life is joined to the lord of the house of death and commits its disposition to it, it will signify death, according to the command of God (unless it should be different because God did not wish [the death]). Whether the lord of the house of death is a fortune or an infortune, it signifies death because it is contrary to the lord of life unless a reception which repels death intercedes between them

When it comes to the "help of the malefics" to kill, one should also bear in mind that essentially/accidentally debilitated benefic may act(other important factors taken into account) as a malefic, especially if ruling/posited in the 8th!

Generally, as the ancients have delivered (refer to Bonatti's aphorism #12), Venus and Jupiter cannot and rarely do harm by themselves, even when ill-dignified. There have to be other factors in the picture.

Again, this is just an aphorism, which cannot and does not explain the whole picture, as you've pointed out yourself - then why are you using it as a stand-alone support for your claim?
I have also found such aphorisms, stating something entirely different...

Bonatti also claims:

The 38th Consideration is, To consider if the Fortunes are Significators, whether they are Cadent from Angles, or from the Ascendant, so as not to behold the same, and be Retrograde; for under these Impediments they will be almost as bad as the Infortunes themselves, unless they be in reception.

"Almost as bad" - this doesn't sound so promising, don't you think? And this aphorism states quite the opposite to what was conveyed in the 12th, doesn't it? That is why we shouldn't take them as a stand-alone rules for anything.

However, here's one more from Bonatti that should clarify the issue (almost!)wholly:

The 92nd is to Observe in Nativities and Questions especially of death, whether the Lord of the House of Death, or Significator of Death, Lord of the House in which the Lord of the Eighth is posited, applies to the Significator of the Native or Querent, or he to them; because a Planet so affected becomes the destroyer of Life, and kills as well if it be a Fortune as an Infortune, and that whether there be a Reception or not.

Greetings,
Goran