Exaltation and Detriment

1
I have been looking for a discussion of this subject, pouring over past topics on this forum, and can't seem to find it.

It seems to me that it has been discussed before, but I just can't seem to find it.

Specifically, I'm looking for its origins....how the other planets were determined. The Sun I can understand. But I am wondering how the Ancients came to a determination for the other six.

Was Detriment automatically be the opposite sign, or were they looking at other factors?

If anyone remembers a discussion similar to that, it would be much appreciated.

2
Hi Lee,

First off, we need to clarify certain terms: A planet is exalted in the sign opposite to its fall. Whereas a planet's detriment is in opposition to its domicile.

The scheme of exaltation and fall seems to be older than the domicile/detriment scheme. It was created in Mesopotamia the 8th century BC, possibly based on the heliacal rising of the planets, or of fixed stars seen as analogous to them.

There a number of rationales for the exaltation scheme, suggested by ancient as well as by modern authors. In my view, the most satisfying explanation so far has been given by Rapahel Gil Brand in his ?Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie?.

Brand notices that you can draw a zigzag line through the planets' traditional exaltations, starting from the Sun in Aries to Venus in Pisces, crossing over to Jupiter in Cancer, then to Mars in Capricorn, further to Mercury in Virgo, and ending at Saturn in Libra.

As far as the exaltations of the trans-Saturnian planets are concerned, there are various opinions to be found among modern astrologers. Brand's proposal is interesting in this regard, as well.

He draws a line symmetrical to the first one, connecting the trans-Saturnian planets in a corresponding order: First from the Moon in Taurus to the exaltation of a still hypothetical planet which would be replacing Venus as the primary ruler of Taurus and which is exalted in Gemini; on to Neptune (instead of Jupiter) in Aquarius, Pluto (instead of Mars) in Leo, another hypothetical planet (replacing Mercury as ruler of Virgo) in Sagittarius, then to Uranus (instead of Saturn) in Scorpio. - At least Uranus' exaltation in Scorpio is fairly well accepted in modern astrology.

The two zigzag lines can be thought of as the two snakes on the wand of Hermes.

Looking only at the seven traditional planets, I noticed that in one zodiacal hemisphere we find together the Moon, the Sun, Venus, and Jupiter; in the other Mars, Mercury, and Saturn. Likewise, in the Babylonian geocentric system Moon, Sun, Jupiter, and Venus were inner planets, while Saturn, Mercury, and Mars were outers. Albeit their order is not quite the same, I do find this noteworthy, given the Babylonian origin of the exaltation scheme.

Talking now about the domicile/detriment scheme, its structure can indeed be seen as analogous to the exaltation scheme.

Michael wrote: On "Is Uranus Associated with Aries?" (philosophy forum), Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:03 pm:
The scheme that I am suggesting coincides with a model I found in "Lehrbuch der klassischen Astrologie" by traditional astrologer Rafael Gil Brand. Brand fits the caducaeus (Hermes' wand, bearing the twin snakes) into the classical diagram. The "snake of the Moon" connects the classical planets, winding itself from Saturn in Capricorn to Jupiter in Sagittarius, Mars in Aries, Venus in Libra, Mercury in Gemini, and finally to the Moon in Cancer. The "snake of the Sun" connects all the transsaturnians, from Uranius in Aquarius to Neptune in Pisces, Pluto in Scorpio, a still undiscovered planet in Taurus, another in Virgo, and finally to the Sun in Leo.
Michael

3
Thanks for that. Some good information there.
I should have been more precise in my terminology. I actually meant domicile/detriment and wasn't thinking of the Exaltation/Fall theme at all.
That was my error.

4
Lee,

This topic may not have had a proper thread of its own yet, but I would like to refer you to the conversation about the background of the classical rulerships that developed on the thread "Tropical zodiac and the Southern hemisphere" (general astrology forum). It starts on page 6 with Mark's post Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:31 pm.

If you then still have questions, feel free to post again!

Michael

5
Michael,
Thanks for that!!!
Now that you jarred my memory, I remember reading that article by Deborah.
Somehow it slipped my memory.
Actually, the old rationale for sign rulership and detriment makes pretty good sense to me.