Inquiry: Assigning Zodiac Signs to the Mundane Houses?

A recent inquiry is what I thought of this technique:

(a) assigning a zodiac sign to the First House (or Ascendant) based on the zodiac correspondence of the First Mother;

(b) then assigning zodiac signs to the cusps of the remaining Mundane Houses in order. For instance, if Albus is the First Mother, then the Ascendant would be Gemini, the cusp of the Second House would be Cancer, the cusp of the Third House would be Leo, and so on;

(c) then evaluating the essential dignity of the planets corresponding to the Geomantic Figures in the Mundane Houses. For instance, let us say that Acquisitio, ruled by the planet Jupiter, is in the Second House. If the Second House were assigned Cancer, per the example above, Jupiter would be in the dignity of exaltation.

I know some ancient and modern geomancers follow this technique, claiming that the evaluation of essential dignity is useful.

The technique would be useful, I agree, if it were logical and if it reflected reality. It isn't, and it doesn't.

If you use this technique, you will note that, because the method generates the zodiac sign on the First House in accordance with the zodiac sign of the First Mother, the planet corresponding to the the First Mother will ALWAYS be in the dignity of domicile or rulership, and the affairs of the First House will therefore always be strong, prosperous, and easily manifested. Because the technique RESULTS IN A CONSTANT, it cannot be true. Querents come to a geomancer all the time in a state of confusion, disarray, self-doubt, ill-health, indecision, chaos, etc., thus proving the falsity of the CONSTANT generated by the technique. If the technique does not work for the First House, it cannot work for the remaining 11 houses.

If you have used this technique in rendering a judgment, your judgment has been in error to that extent.

If you find a geomancer who recommends the above technique, I would urge you to proceed with caution. He or she may have other logic problems in casting or in judgment. I have said it before, and I will say it again: If you have a Magister or Magistra in Geomancy or any other divinatory art, one of the most important things he or she will teach you is how to think in accordance with reality.

A NOTE ON GERARD OF CREMONA's METHOD: If are using the method of Gerard of Cremona (recorded on this site recently), THIS FALSE CONSTANT IS NOT GENERATED. The sign of the Ascendant is generated at random, and independently of the placement of the planets. So, there is no logical flaw present in his method.

Inquiry: Combustion and Fortuna Minor

Another inquiry: Whether FORTUNA MAJOR can combust or subradiate the figure of FORTUNA MINOR, even though FORTUNA MINOR is also ruled by the SUN?

The answer is YES. FORTUNA MAJOR is not really destroying the figure in the house under consideration, but is destroying the ability of the MUNDANE HOUSE (i.e., the EARTH HOUSE) to produce anything. Nothing will grow in scorched earth no matter what seed is planted there.

Remember the story of Phaethon, the son of the Sun god Helios. Phaethon once begged his father to drive the Chariot of the Sun. Helios, against his better judgment, permitted it, as Helios had promised Phaethon he would grant Phaethon anything he wanted to prove that Phaethon was his son. Phaethon lost control of the Horses of the Sun, which dove toward Earth, permitting the Sun to scorch Africa and create deserts there. It was MOTHER EARTH, in danger of burning up, who pleaded with Zeus, the King of the Gods, to save her. In order to preserve the Earth, Zeus struck the chariot with a thunderbolt and destroyed it, and killed Phaethon. This will help you remember that it is the MUNDANE HOUSE that is COMBUSTED by the strong SUN figure, FORTUNA MAJOR.

Inquiry: Does Inverted Company Exist?

Another Inquiry: We know that REVERSE COMPANY occurs when figures that are the REVERSE of each other occur in ACCOMPANYING HOUSES (ex. 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and so on). Does COMPANY also occur when INVERTED figures (figures that have one dot where the other has two dots, and two dots where the other has one dot) appear in ACCOMPANYING HOUSES?

The answer is NO. COMPANY does not occur by INVERTED figures. Only REVERSE figures.

So, if PUER is in HOUSE 1, and PUELLA (PUER's REVERSE FIGURE) is in HOUSE 2, we have an instance of REVERSE COMPANY.

If PUER is in HOUSE 1, and ALBUS (PUER'S INVERTED FIGURE) is in HOUSE 2, there is NO COMPANY.

INVERTED FIGURES, however, do have a minor usage in interpretation, and you can read about that here in this entry:

https://magister-geomantiae.dreamwidth.org/26128.html

Inquiry: Figures as Retrograde Planets?

Another Inquiry: Some old and modern geomancy texts refer to certain figures as being the RETROGRADE status of their respective planets. Is this significant?

The answer is: I have never found it to be significant in interpreting a chart, and I believe it to be a mistaken correspondence that can be ignored. Which figures are retrograde vary a bit according to author. One list is that CONJUNCTIO/MERCURY, AMISSIO/VENUS, RUBEUS/MARS, LAETITIA/JUPITER, and CARCER/SATURN are the figures of RETROGRADE MOTION, while the other figures of those planets are DIRECT IN MOTION.

Retrograde motion in our cosmology has the sense of something moving backwards, against nature. I find it difficult to accept that 5 of our Geomancy figures represent forces running contrary to nature, especially when one of them is LAETITIA. Happiness and joy and good health are contrary to nature? I don't believe it.

What I think the old geomancers were trying to determine was the relative strength of the figures of the same planet. This can be discerned in another way, however. In astrological cosmology, EACH PLANET is either DIURNAL (DAY) or NOCTURNAL (NIGHT) by nature.

DIURNAL PLANETS: SUN, JUPITER, SATURN
NOCTURNAL PLANETS: MOON, VENUS, MARS
DEPENDS: MERCURY

Each planet also has a DAY ZODIAC SIGN and a NIGHT ZODIAC SIGN. The planets that are more DIURNAL by nature function better or are stronger in their DAY ZODIAC SIGNS than they do in their NIGHT ZODIAC SIGNS. The planets that are NOCTURNAL by nature function better or are stronger in their NIGHT ZODIAC SIGNS than they do in their DAY ZODIAC SIGNS.

This can be transferred over to Geomancy figures.

VENUS: Her day sign is Taurus. Her night sign is Libra. She is a nocturnal planet, and therefore prefers to be in Libra. Thus, PUELLA is stronger than AMISSIO.

MARS: His day sign is Aries. His night sign is Scorpio. He is a nocturnal planet, and therefore prefers to be in Scorpio. Thus, RUBEUS is stronger than PUER.

JUPITER: His day sign is Sagittarius. His night sign is Pisces. He is a diurnal planet, and therefore prefers to be in Sagittarius. Thus, ACQUISITIO is stronger than LAETITIA.

SATURN: His day sign is Aquarius. His night sign is Capricorn. He is a diurnal planet, and therefore prefers to be in Aquarius. Thus, TRISTITIA is stronger than CARCER.

The Moon and Sun figures are different, since they each rule only one sign. But geomancy accounts for this by giving a stronger figure and weaker figure to each of the Lights. Thus, FORTUNA MAJOR, the Rising Sun, is generally stronger than FORTUNA MINOR, the Setting Sun. And POPULUS, the Waxing Moon, is generally stronger than VIA, the Waning Moon.

MERCURY is in a category of his own because he can be both DIURNAL and NOCTURNAL at different times. His day sign is Gemini and his night sign is Virgo. But, he doesn't prefer either one, so we cannot really say whether ALBUS or CONJUNCTIO is the stronger. I suspect that, if we had to evaluate this for a real geomancy chart, we might look to see if ALBUS or CONJUNCTIO was in COMPANY with another figure of a different planet. For example, if ALBUS were in HOUSE 1 and RUBEUS were in HOUSE 2, giving CAPITAL and REVERSE COMPANY. ALBUS would probably take on the nocturnal nature of Mars and act in a nocturnal fashion. Because ALBUS is associated with the day sign of Mercury, ALBUS would probably not be happy in this situation.

Although I believe the above to be a more accurate description of the relative strength of the figures, compared to direct and retrograde motion, I hasten to add that I have never had occasion to use this when I am actually judging charts. Perhaps we will sometime have a chart where we have to "split hairs" down to this level, but, as I say, I have not yet encountered one in my experience.