Seventh Aphorism: Superiores et Inferiores

7. Magnorum principum facias significatorem Solem, vel aliquem de superioribus. Scribatum vero & rusticorum inferiores planetas, & praecipue Lunam.

"Take the Sun, or another of the Superior [planets], as the significator of mighty princes; but of secretaries and peasants [you should take as significator] the Inferior planets, especially the Moon."

This aphorism is clearly connected to the previous one. The sixth aphorism contrasts two pairs of planets: the first pair (Venus and Mercury) are inferiores, while the second pair (Jupiter and Mars) are superiores. The present aphorism continues to explore this same topic.

In Ptolemaic (geocentric) terms, the superiores ("superior planets") are those whose orbits are outside the orbit of the Sun: Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The inferiores ("inferior planets") are those whose orbits are inside the orbit of the Sun: Venus and Mercury. In heliocentric terms, it can be said that the superiores are those planets further from the Sun than the Earth is, while the inferiores are those planets nearer to the Sun than the Earth is. The language of the present aphorism extends the categories to include the Luminaries, so that the Sun is to be regarded as one of the superiores, and the Moon as one of the inferiores. Well and good.

But what is meant by a significator? The term is mainly associated with Primary Direction, in such procedures as "directing the Significator to the Third (or Descendant) Angle." In that context, it means a particular planet which has been chosen for some reason. The Hyleg (discussed at length in connection with the First Aphorism) is an example of this. The Hyleg is the planet which has been identified as the "giver of life," and therefore represents or stands for something in a particular context.

The present aphorism does not appear to deal with Primary Direction, however, but to signification at a more basic level. The aphorism tells us that the Sun is the principal significator of persons of power and authority, while the Moon is the natural significator of subservient persons. Alongside the two Luminaries, the superior planets (Saturn, Jupiter, or Mars) can also signify those in authority, while the inferior planets (Venus and Mercury) can also signify those under authority. This means that in the analysis of any given chart, one should examine any or all of these planets, their essential dignities, and the aspects that exist among them; along with all the degrees any or all of these planets rule (by Domicile, Exaltation, Triplicity, Term, and Facies), as well as the houses ruled by each planet--and such analysis is to be carried out with special reference to relations of dominance and subservience, as signified by the planets in the two categories established by the aphorism. Such an analysis will reveal much about the nature of specific familial, social, and vocational relationships.

This leads us once again to the Narrative Mode of horoscopic interpretation, which we have mentioned previously (in regard to the 5th aphorism). The present aphorism is a clear example of the use of the Narrative Mode, in that the planets are being personified to create a kind of scenario or story (hence the picture at the head of this essay). Beltrano has written an interesting paper on this procedure, which will be presented in due time.

Let us try to apply these ideas to our Inception Chart. First, let it be noted that a full analysis of the superiores and inferiores will consider exactly 12 possibilities (Saturn/Venus, Saturn/Mercury, Saturn/Moon; Jupiter/Venus, Jupiter/Mercury, Jupiter/Moon; Mars/Venus, Mars/Mercury, Mars/Moon; Sun/Venus, Sun/Mercury, Sun/Moon). The language of the aphorism clearly implies that the "default" relation is that of the Sun to the Moon. In our inception chart, the Moon is entirely lacking in Essential Dignities, while the Sun is dignified by facies only (traditionally scored as one point). Moreover, there is only a separating sextile aspect between the two. Such a relation yields little information upon which we could base an astrological Judgement.

The obvious question (which our aphorism does not clearly answer) is, under what circumstances would we choose some other of the superiores to the exclusion of the Sun, or some other of the inferiores to the exclusion of the Moon? I can think of four reasons for doing this: first, another planet might be taken as significator because it possesses more essential dignities; second, another planet might be taken as significator because it possesses more relations of domination to a planet in the other category; third, another planet might be taken as significator because it aspects a planet in the other category; fourth, another planet might be taken as significator because it more accurately personifies the dominant or subservient person in a given situation (in terms of what is known about the person's character as described in the 6th aphorism, or in terms of that person's radix). For our Inception Chart, the Twelve Relations are as follows:

A. Essential Dignities [domicile = 5 points, exaltation = 4 points, triplicity = 3 points, term = 2 points, facies = 1 point]

Superiores: Sun = 1 (facies), Mars = 0, Jupiter = 0, Saturn = 0

Inferiores: Moon = 0, Mercury = 10 (domicile, exaltation, facies), Venus = 0

Clearly, the planet Mercury dominates the chart and would be the logical choice as significator among the inferiores. With only one point, there is no particular reason to take the Sun as significator.

B. Relations of Domination to the Other Category [same point system as above; where reciprocal relations exist, we deduct the smaller from the larger]

1. Saturn <>

2. Saturn > Mercury (2 points [term]); Mercury > Saturn (10 points [domicile, exaltation, facies]), so deducting the former from the latter we get Mercury > Saturn (8 points)

3. Saturn : Moon (no relations)

4. Jupiter > Venus (4 points [exaltation])

5. Jupiter : Mercury (no relations)

6. Jupiter <>

7. Mars > Venus (5 points [triplicity, term])

8. Mars <>

9. Mars > Moon (11 points [domicile, triplicity, term, facies])

10. Sun <>

11. Sun <>

12. Sun : Moon (no relations)

Of the Twelve, the ones that stand out are obviously the domination of the Moon by Mars (11 points), the domination of the Sun by Mercury (11 points), and the domination of Saturn by Mercury (8 points). The latter relation represents some degree of conflict, while the first two suggest pure subservience. It is interesting to note that, taken as a group, the inferior planets have 31 points of domination over the superiors, while the superiors have only 20 points of domination over the inferiors--a superiority of approximately three to two.

C. Aspects and Testimonies

1. Moon square Jupiter (testimony)

2. Moon sextile Saturn (testimony)

3. Mercury square Mars (partile square)

4. Sun conjunct Saturn (testimony)

Of these, the one that jumps out is the square aspect between Mercury and Mars. Not only is it the only real aspect in the chart, but it is partile (both planets in the 30th degree of their respective signs)--clearly a powerful and important aspect!

D. Personification

This means that we will chose the planets that best reflect the character traits exhibited by the principals and subordinates, as known from acquaintance with them (or as suggested by planets in their radices).

We must first figure out who it is that we are personifying. Beltrano, the founder and main writer of this blog, is both saturnine and jovial. Mary Bliss (who has some role in the project) is best represented by the planet Venus. Old Hat (who currently bears responsibility for the blog) has mercurial tendencies. Notice how nicely this fits into the scheme of superiores and inferiores: Beltrano is personified by two superior planets, while both of his amanuenses are personified by inferior planets.

All things considered, it is sufficiently clear that we ought to take Mercury as the significator of the inferiores. Not only is Mercury the only planet with any essential dignities to speak of, but also Mercury dominates three of the four superiors (Saturn, Mars, Sun). In addition, Mercury is involved in a very important partile aspect to Mars. Finally, as already noted, Old Hat (currently acting as our amanuensis), is clearly mercurial in his tendencies.

Our choice for significator of the superiores is not so very clear. Essential dignities suggest nothing at all. Furthermore, Mars stands out for its clear domination of the Moon, and Mars is involved in a powerful partile square relation to another of the inferiors, Mercury. However, none of our dramatis personae demonstrates particularly martial tendencies. This might lead us to anticipate the intervention of some outside party as an authority figure.

Based on all of this analysis, I would take Mercury as the significator of the inferiors, and Mars as the significator of the superiors.

I will conclude with some additional notes about the nature of the superiores and inferiores. While the three superior planets have one heliacal setting in the course of a complete revolution, the two inferior planets have two heliacal settings. An heliacal setting occurs when a star or planet is lost to view in the Sun's glare; the monthly disappearance of the Moon ("New Moon") is the most familiar example of this. The heliacal risings and settings of the planets are the bedrock of Astrology, and were recorded by both the Egyptians (who established the Sothic Cycle of 1441 years, generated by the heliacal risings of Sirius) and the Babylonians. Dr. Rumen Kolev of Sofia, Bulgaria continues to do valuable work along these lines.

Furthermore, the two inferior planets (Venus and Mercury) have two positions of conjunction: the Inferior Conjunction (when they pass in front of the Sun) and the Superior Conjunction (when they pass behind the Sun). By contrast, the superior planets (Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars) have only the Superior Conjunction. Mercury is exceptional in making six visible stations (meaning that the planet appears to stop and then reverse the direction of its motion), while the other four planets make two visible stations.

Finally, it should be noted that the two inferior planets never venture very far from the Sun. Venus never elongates more than 48 degrees from the Sun, while Mercury never elongates more than 28 degrees from the Sun. This means that Venus can never be more than two zodiacal signs away from the sign the Sun occupies, and Mercury can never be more than one sign away. So for Mercury, there are just three possible configurations with the Sun: Mercury in the sign preceding the Sun; Mercury and the Sun in the same sign; Mercury in the sign following the Sun. For Venus, there are five possible configurations: Venus two signs ahead of the Sun; Venus in the sign preceding the Sun; Venus and the Sun in the same sign; Venus in the sign following the Sun; Venus two signs behind the Sun. This yields a total of 15 possible configurations involving the Sun and the two inferiores. By extension, there are exactly 360 configurations: the Sun can appear in any of the 12 signs of the zodiac, and can be either above or below the horizon (the definition of day and night); Mercury can occupy the same sign as the Sun, or the sign preceding or following; while Venus can occupy the same sign as the Sun, either of the two signs preceding it, or either of the two signs following it. Thus, 12 x 2 x 3 x 5 = 360 configurations, which is equivalent to the number of degrees in the entire Zodiac!

There are few astrological precepts and procedures dealing specifically with the categories of superiores and inferiores. The present aphorism is one important example. I have found two further examples in the "146 Considerations" of Bonatus (13th century). The Sixth Consideration treats of the Ten Impediments of the Planets: "The third is when it is combust, that is, by 15º in front of the Sun, and less so after him: indeed the inferiors are impeded more when they are after the Sun, and less so when they are in front of him (when they are direct; to the contrary when retrograde). . . . The eighth is when it is peregrine, that is, in a place in which it does not have any dignity; or they are superiors followed by the Sun, or the inferiors pursue him." [translated by Ben Dykes] This means that the inferiores are strongest when preceding the Sun, while the superiores are strongest when following the Sun; but the reverse is true for retrograding planets. Note that this rule applies only to planets within 15 degrees of the Sun (I do not know exactly what is meant by the phrase "and less so after him"--obviously it implies an arc of less than 15 degrees, but I do not know what that arc would be). Our Inception Chart contains no examples of either inferiores or superiores in such a position.

OLD HAT