How Are Essential Dignities Calculated?

[Rebel Uranian]

I don't want the table of scoring, I want to know how they decided what the day and night rulers are, and the face and term rulers, and all that. Does anyone know? I know that the day rulers has to do with planets being hot or cold and months being hot or cold, but I don't know all the other stuff.

 

[tsmall]

This tutorial gives a basic overview of the "why" behind the dignities, etc.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig2.html

Diurnal simply means 'of the nature of the day'; nocturnal, 'of the nature of the night'. The terms 'diurnal and nocturnal' are synonymous with 'masculine and feminine', 'yin and yang', 'extrovert and introvert'. Diurnal energy usually gives a more spontaneous reaction where inner drives are consciously expressed and clearly apparent. Nocturnal energy is usually more reflective and operates at a deeper level of consciousness.

Valens in Anthologies, Book II describes the trigons, and their lords.

...the moon, being near the earth, is alloted the housrulership of Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn, a triangle earthy in nature and the next in order. It has Venus and Mars as members of the same sect; Venus (as is reasonable) acts as a benefactor and distributes glory and years; Mars acts as the bane of nativities. Therefore for night births the moon has preeminence; in the second place is Venus; in the third is Mars. For day births Venus will lead; the moon will operate second; Mars third.

 

[dr. farr]

Face and term dignities are simple direct resonance: Saturn in the face or term of itself (Saturn) is in maximum resonance with itself, and therefore essentially dignified. Triplicity dignity is also based on resonance-here though the resonance is of an elemental nature: therfore a water element planet like the Moon is elementally resonant with the signs of the Water triplicity (trigon).
The skyscript information referenced above, especially the section about the Philosophy of Sign Rulership, should be of some help.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I don't want the table of scoring, I want to know how they decided what the day and night rulers are, and the face and term rulers, and all that. Does anyone know? I know that the day rulers has to do with planets being hot or cold and months being hot or cold, but I don't know all the other stuff.

Many fundamental techniques and methods of the true, ancient astrology are generally unknown to modern astrologers. One of such fundamental basis of an astrology is the system of terms - the division of an ecliptic onto 60 unequal sectors by 5 sectors per each sign of the zodiac

The lord of the terms, the planet or sensitive point falls into, is considered as the limiting factor of manifestation of this planet or sensitive point.

In this way, if the planet is in its own terms, it's like a man among his relatives - on the one hand he is surrounded by his people, but on the other hand certain restrictions and obligations are applied to him.

Obviously, the position of the planet in the terms of another planet is like a man in someone else's family, that he is something obliged to.

The system of terms, in particular, was used by ancient Egyptian astrologers for determination of lifetime, and it was considered, that without knowing the exact lifetime, it is impossible to make any precise predictions.

Today it is well-known, that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school and, most likely, he was never a practising astrologer at all. His work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions.

source Albert Timashevhttp://astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

 

[Rebel Uranian]

These articles and sites provided some very cool information, however I would like to know more, some of which I will wait to ask later, but what I really want to know at the present moment is: how were the exaltations of the nodes decided?

 

[dr. farr]

There is much controversy (in the old literature) about that; controversy as well about the same subject is to be found in the Vedic literature as well.
In Vedic, many believe that only Rahu (NN) has domicile and exaltation/Fall affinities (Ketu, the SN having neither) Some in the West have rejected domicile and exaltation/Fall for the Nodes-I share this view, meaning that I do not believe that POINTS of space-albeit full of meaning and influences-have domiciles, exaltation and Fall degrees, which I believe are limited to the planets.

 

[tsmall]

There is much controversy (in the old literature) about that; controversy as well about the same subject is to be found in the Vedic literature as well.
In Vedic, many believe that only Rahu (NN) has domicile and exaltation/Fall affinities (Ketu, the SN having neither) Some in the West have rejected domicile and exaltation/Fall for the Nodes-I share this view, meaning that I do not believe that POINTS of space-albeit full of meaning and influences-have domiciles, exaltation and Fall degrees, which I believe are limited to the planets.

I don't remember where I read (and cannot find a link, possibly due to a new computer) that the pits and peaks of planets were originally where they could be seen/not seen on observation. (I am guessing with either the naked eye, or whatever device might have been available in ancient times.) If that is indeed correct, it would stand to reason that points (all Greek lots/Arabic parts/points in space..including the nodes) were never able to be "seen" or visually witnessed in the first place. Meaning that they could not be either elevated, exalted or pitted?

 

[dr. farr]

No degree, Part/Lot or midpoint or Node can ever be seen-they are of the invisible world-always were! In my opinion the explanation of something having to be seen by the naked eye (or at all) to be "real", as attributed to the ancients as being the basis for their development of astrology, is quite incorrect.

 

[Moog]

Ahh, good questions Rebel, I want to watch this one.

 

[Rebel Uranian]

I have another question: What determines if a planet is diurnal or nocturnal? I've heard from one source that some planets are more diurnal or nocturnal than others and that gender doesn't always correlate (i.e. Mars is nocturnal according to source) but then I've heard that all planets are either diurnal or nocturnal with no planet more or less diurnal/nocturnal than any other diurnal/nocturnal planet and that it is based solely on the gender of the planet.

Another interesting point (not a question): I've heard that some people will make Mercury masculine if it rises before the Sun and feminine if it rises after. If that's the case, it should be both exalted and domiciled in Gemini rather than Virgo if it rises before the Sun. I find the idea interesting even if it's meaningless for some or another reason that I don't currently know about.

 

[Moog]

I have another question: What determines if a planet is diurnal or nocturnal? I've heard from one source that some planets are more diurnal or nocturnal than others and that gender doesn't always correlate (i.e. Mars is nocturnal according to source) but then I've heard that all planets are either diurnal or nocturnal with no planet more or less diurnal/nocturnal than any other diurnal/nocturnal planet and that it is based solely on the gender of the planet.

I believe you are talking about the concept of sect there, which is a trad technique.

The basic idea there is, Mars is too hot by day (in the upper hemisphere on a chart), so Mars is happier 'under the earth' (in the lower hemisphere on a chart). That cools Mars down, bringing it under better control... so the theory as I understand it goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_of_sect
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/sect.html
http://www.astrology-x-files.com/x-files/hellenistic-sect.html

There's a bunch of helpful writings about sect on the X-files site there.

Oh, and check this out: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/triplicities.html

Another interesting point (not a question): I've heard that some people will make Mercury masculine if it rises before the Sun and feminine if it rises after. If that's the case, it should be both exalted and domiciled in Gemini rather than Virgo if it rises before the Sun. I find the idea interesting even if it's meaningless for some or another reason that I don't currently know about.

Well I don't know about 'shoulds' but it seems logical that if an oriental Mercury is 'more male' then it would be more more 'male' in Gemini...

Try reading it like that for people's charts you read, and if it works, stick with it.

 

[Rebel Uranian]

That's what I'm doing. There's a lot of stuff I have to work out. I don't even know if that thing about Mercury is true, I just heard that some people use it. I seriously don't know how so many people can go so long without really bothering with dignities when they're the basis of astrology.

As I predicted, Mars works better in Scorpio than Aries after all...

 

[tsmall]

No degree, Part/Lot or midpoint or Node can ever be seen-they are of the invisible world-always were! In my opinion the explanation of something having to be seen by the naked eye (or at all) to be "real", as attributed to the ancients as being the basis for their development of astrology, is quite incorrect.

I only meant that I had read (and haven't been able to find again) that the original "idea" for pitted degrees was that planets, when in those degrees, were unable to be seen, and that they were elevated when they emerged. My speculation (because sometimes, without instruction, it is necessary to think about "why") was only that the nodes, and parts/lots, since they were not able to be observed, would then not have dignity, nor be subject to peaks, pits and exaltations. I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought anything that cannot be seen has no value, or is not real.

 

[dr. farr]

Please note that my post was not critical of you or your statements-not at all! Yes, from a Traditionalist point of view (where being seen is important) your connecting that with being in a pitted degree is correct. And also as to why Nodes do not really have dignity/debility (although, in Traditional and in Vedic, the Nodes are nonethless allocated dignity and debility! Some have even allocated dignity and debility to the Part of Fortune in various signs!)

See, most of the Hellenistic and Traditionalist emphasis is on "videntia", seeing and being seen (such as signs seeing each other, etc) But what has not been much emphasized, actually had been largely forgotten, is from the oldest Hellenistic doctrines about signs also "hearing" each other, the "audentia" relationship of signs: I interpret "hearing" as a kind of subtle "understanding" among the audentia-connected signs, and this is another kind of relationship between signs, in addition to "videntia"-"seeing"-each other. The list of audentia (a diagram of the signs which "hear" each other) is found in Manilius "Astronomica": certainly an interesting concept with suggestive ramifications!

 

[dr. farr]

Best explanation of planetary sect is to be found in Robert Hand's booklet. "Night and Day: Planetary Sect in Astrology"

Me? I don't use this concept very much (for me it is a minor consideration in making delineative analysis) I also question the allocations: Mars in sect @ night? Saturn in sect by day? For me, Mars is yang, what is it doing being said to resonant with yin (night); Saturn is yin, why is it said to resonate with yang (day)? But, when I do use sect as a component of analysis, nonetheless I follow these indications, because they are part of a whole system model (in this case Hellenistic and Traditionalist Western astrology models), and when using a particular whole system model to obtain results from that model, it is best not to tinker with that model (that's why mostly I use my OWN model, which is eclectic in its composition, rather than derived solely from one school or method of practice)

 

[tsmall]

Please note that my post was not critical of you or your statements-not at all! Yes, from a Traditionalist point of view (where being seen is important) your connecting that with being in a pitted degree is correct. And also as to why Nodes do not really have dignity/debility (although, in Traditional and in Vedic, the Nodes are nonethless allocated dignity and debility! Some have even allocated dignity and debility to the Part of Fortune in various signs!)

See, most of the Hellenistic and Traditionalist emphasis is on "videntia", seeing and being seen (such as signs seeing each other, etc) But what has not been much emphasized, actually had been largely forgotten, is from the oldest Hellenistic doctrines about signs also "hearing" each other, the "audentia" relationship of signs: I interpret "hearing" as a kind of subtle "understanding" among the audentia-connected signs, and this is another kind of relationship between signs, in addition to "videntia"-"seeing"-each other. The list of audentia (a diagram of the signs which "hear" each other) is found in Manilius "Astronomica": certainly an interesting concept with suggestive ramifications!

dr. farr, first, please do criticize and/or correct anything that I post. I more than welcome the correction, since I am learning in a vacuum. It would appear that I need to add Astronomica to my Xmas list, which in astrology books this year is already enormous. My question tonight..."videntia" = beholding? And, does "hearing" equate to comanding and obeying?

 

[dr. farr]

-yes, videntia (seeing) can mean "beholding"
-no, the audentia (hearing relationship) does not connect with the meaning of commanding and obeying sign relationships.

 

[tsmall]

-yes, videntia (seeing) can mean "beholding"
-no, the audentia (hearing relationship) does not connect with the meaning of commanding and obeying sign relationships.

Until Santa comes to my house, would you be willing to post the list of signs that "hear" each other? Because regarding audentia, this is all I could find....

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

Manlius and other ancient authors called such signs audentia, 'signs which hear each other'. William Lilly refers to signs that are 'commanding and obeying' on page 92 of Christian Astrology, but doesn't offer a description of their meaning. The Greek astrologer Paulus Alexandrinus noted that signs which 'hear each other' dispose well for the flight of fugitives, for going abroad, and for accusations, suggesting that there is some divisive element attributed to their meaning.[16]

So,
Pisces hears Aries
Aquarius hears Taurus
Capricorn hears Gemini
Sagittaruis hears Cancer
Scorpio hears Leo
Libra hears Virgo

For us noobs, does this mean that signs which hear each other are in some way able to affect the matters of the houses to which they pertain? For example, Pisces and Aries are in aversion to each other, and planets/points in them cannot traditionally "see" one another. But, if they can hear...is it similar to someone in the kitchen of a house shouting for someone else in the living room to answer the phone, door, turn off the light....?

 

[dr. farr]

Yes that is the list of audentia sign relationships.
Yes you are quite correct in saying that signs which hear each other can affect the matters of the houses to which they pertain; and the example you give is a very good illustration of the principle involved!

 

[tsmall]

Yes that is the list of audentia sign relationships.
Yes you are quite correct in saying that signs which hear each other can affect the matters of the houses to which they pertain; and the example you give is a very good illustration of the principle involved!

*Rebel, sorry if this hijacks your thread a bit.*

I have to ask one last question regarding audentia (because, yes, I have been thinking about this all day)...I am supposing that the condition of the rulers of the signs that hear each other, as well as the condition of the planets posited in those signs, will determine if mom shouting from the kitchen is actually answered, or if she has to stop what she's doing and go see for herself? Meaning that delineating the planets will tell if some houses/sign rulers will be actually doing double duty for other houses?