Hypsomata (Exaltation Degrees)

[Jim Eshelman]

Recently, a question was raised as to whether the traditional exaltation degrees were cardinal or ordinal or rounding or... whatever. That is: Does "28° Capricorn" mean the 28th degree of Capricorn (27°01'-28°00'), or "28°-and-some-minutes," or 27°30'-28°29'?

I opined that they always struck me as rounded and I thought they had at least a degree leeway. However, it occurred to me today that there might be a different answer simply by quoting exactly where the planets were in 786 BC at the times that (as far as we know) originated (or, alternatively, memorialized) these exaltations. I'm not convinced that this is astrologically relevant, but it can't hurt to look, eh?

For making these calculations (based on modern calculations, but for the information Fagan gave in Zodiacs Old & New), we need to pick a place. The pattern was Babylonian. Where was the city of Babylon? It's the modern city of Hillah, Iraq (32N30, 44E25).

The new year that we call 786 BC began at the first appearance of the crescent Moon at Babylon on April 3, 786 BC. Fagan calculated this as 6:30 PM LMT. I get visual sunset at 6:15 PM, and I'm not quite sure how far it has to be suppressed for the new crescent Moon to appear. Sun was 4° below Descendant at 6:30, and the 15 minute period makes no difference for my current purposes.

At that moment, Sun (exalted at 19° Aries) was 18°53' Aries. Venus (exalted at 27° Pisces) was at 26°34' Pisces. These seem to follow the "rounding" rule.

Moon's exaltation at 3° Taurus was theoretically its longitude at this same moment. It doesn't work out that way. (Fagan knew it.) Moon was 29°23' Aries, not 3° Taurus. Even parallax wouldn't have displaced it another 4°; in fact, parallax would have made it about 1° earlier, 28°22' Aries. Moon did not enter Taurus until 7:45 PM, when it had set, and didn't reach 3° Taurus until after midnight. I think we have a Babylonian fudge!

So, let's move on to the other planets...

According to Fagan, Mercury (exalted at 15° Virgo) had its heliacal setting (disappearance) at sunrise September 14 when it was 16°24' Virgo (not exact to the hypsoma's degree).

According to Fagan, Mars (exalted at 28° Capricorn) had its heliacal rising (appearance) at sunrise February 4, 785 BC, when it was 1°28' Aquarius (a few degrees off, obviously).

Jupiter (exalted at 15° Cancer) had its heliacal setting (i.e., disappearance) at sunset June 22 when it was 15°14' Cancer.

Saturn (exalted at 21° Libra) had its heliacal setting (disappearance) at sunset September 23 when it was 21°09' Libra.

Fagan counsels that these are theoretical dates of heliacal risings and settings that can be affected by all sorts of things, the least of which is local weather conditions. This may well have slid Mercury one degree earlier in the zodiac, but it would not have brought Mars to the right position.

But... except for those that obviously are fudges... this does give us a piece of the answer to the original question about what was meant by the exaltation degrees: It is, indeed, a matter of rounding to the nearest whole degree point. (PS - Fagan said the Mars date was the least sure of all of them, and could be off by as much as a week.)

[Jim Eshelman]

Double checking the math on Mars...

Sun conjoined Mars November 12, 786 BC. Sun's longitude at the time was 26° Scorpio (Tropical 12° Scorpio). According to Karl Schoch's heliacal tables, when the Sun conjoins Mars at this Tropical longitude, Mars' heliacal rising and setting are, respectively 79 days after and before. November 12 + 79 days is January 30, not February 4. (Somebody check my math, please.) That makes all the difference in the world! At sunrise on January 30, 785 BC, Mars' longitude was... 27°33' Capricorn, exactly right!

Let's double check Mercury. Sun conjoined Mercury September 29 at 11° Libra (Tropical 27° Virgo). When Sun conjoins Mercury at Tropical 177° longitude, Mercury's heliacal risings and settings occur 14 to 15 days on either side. Going back 15 days gives September 14, which Fagan picked, but the best we can calculate from Schoch's round-degree tables is that it should be September 13 or 14. If the weather was cloudy on September 14, or other local (horizon) factors intervened, then Mercury was last seen at sunrise September 13 when its longitude at sunrise was: 14°41' Virgo or (rounded like the others), 15° Virgo - exactly right.

[Jim Eshelman]

So, at the times supposedly marking the origins of the exaltation degrees, the seven planets were placed as follows:

Sun (exalted at 19° Aries) 18°53' Aries
Moon (exalted at 3° Taurus) 29°23' Aries
Mercury (exalted at 15° Virgo) 14°41' Virgo
Venus (exalted at 27° Pisces) 26°34' Pisces
Mars (exalted at 28° Capricorn) 27°33' Capricorn
Jupiter (exalted at 15° Cancer) 15°14' Cancer
Saturn (exalted at 21° Libra) 21°09' Libra

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

Jupiter (exalted at 15° Cancer) 15°14' Cancer.

Jim, how should a siderealist delineate this soon to be exalted Jupiter degree with t. Jupiter to their natal and return charts? Also, maybe we should take a closer look at t. Jupiter with SMA’s daily timing tools with the Dow getting ready to make new historical highs?

[Jim Eshelman]

Jupiter (exalted at 15° Cancer) 15°14' Cancer.

Jim, how should a siderealist delineate this soon to be exalted Jupiter degree with t. Jupiter to their natal and return charts? Also, maybe we should take a closer look at t. Jupiter with SMA’s daily timing tools with the Dow getting ready to make new historical highs?

If there is anything to the exaltation degrees per se - and I think there is - then one would simply regard 15° Cancer as the most Jupiterian degree in the zodiac, 15° Capricorn as the least, etc.

In SMA there are already examples of fires occurring with Venus (in each case square Saturn) at 28° Capricorn, theoretically the most martial degree of the zodiac; another example of 19° Aries being relevant as solar; another of 15° Capricorn seeming to be un-Jupiter. Maybe more. But this is all anecdotal, a good theory with enough seeming confirmation to keep one open-minded and optimistic.

[Jim Eshelman]

J.P. Morgan AA rated with Natal Venus exalted at 26,22 Pi.
April 17 1837, 3:00 AM LMT, Hartford Connecticut

Between 1890 and 1913, he spent more than half his fortune on art - about sixty million dollars, the equivalent of roughly a billion in 1999. He was president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art from 1904 to 1913. An outstanding philanthropist, he gave millions to cultural institutions, hospitals, medical education, the Episcopal Church, artists, scholars, clergymen, relatives and friends. Despite his love of great art, he was known as a singularly inarticulate and unreflective man.

And for his great generous wealth-- Natal Jupiter exalted at 15,54 Cancer.

[Jim Eshelman]

One of the luckiest sons o'guns ever to live. For example, a most fortunate disappointment was that he couldn't make it to London to board his new investment, a ship called the Titanic, on its maiden voyage.

Aries-Leo fits him utterly. Mars-Jupiter-Neptune shows a gambler and investor and industrialist who could virtually will reality into being. Mars and Uranus foreground show various traits. And, yes, as you point out, he has Venus and Jupiter within a degree of their exaltation degrees.

Oh, but you missed one: Saturn is also at 22°39' Libra, only about a degree from its hypsoma as well.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim wrote:

One of the luckiest sons o'guns ever to live.

Yes, Venus & Jupiter in their exaltation degree certainly helps explain his life. Probing further into his natal I notice he has a partile (0,14) direct midpoint of Jup/Pl=MC. Ebertin offers for this direct midpoint:

Ambition, assiduity and industriousness, the desire to succeed. Advantages in one’s occupation, advancement and promotion, great luck.

Kay Cavendar, a siderealist offers:

Jupiter-Pluto combinations are known for incredible luck, impossible wins, etc.

[Jim Eshelman]

Define exaltation degree please? I just think of the planets exalted in signs, like Venus in Pisces. So what about the degree if anything?

Anciently, the exaltations were stated specifically as degrees (and then later generalized as signs):

Sun 19° Aries
Moon 3° Taurus
Mercury 15° Virgo
Venus 27° Pisces
Mars 28° Capricorn
Jupiter 15° Cancer
Saturn 21° Libra.

It was a great mystery where these came from. Then, in the late '40s, Cyril Fagan broke the code. In doing so, he found that his estimate of the boundaries of the Sidereal zodiac (based on the most popular Hindu zodiac) was 1° off, that Spica should be 29° Virgo not 0° Libra. Before he could make this known, Bradley wrote him that, based on the statistical examination of the largest professional group in the current issue of Who's Who (2,492 eminent clergymen), he was ready to concede that the Sidereal zodiac was correct, but he thought Fagan's early estimates were 1° off - that Spica should be 29° Virgo, Aldebaran and Antares at 15° Taurus-Scorpio, etc. Thus, by independent archaeological and statistical means, the essentials boundaries were simultaneously determined and agreed to the nearest degree. Less than a decade later, new means were discovered that allowed the determination of this to the nearest second (or nearly so).

Whether these exaltation degrees have exact to-the-degree value remains debatable. There isn't broad, planet by planet confirmation. However, for one of them, there are many indications: The degree range 27°-28° Capricorn has several indications that it is possibly the single most martial degree in the zodiac.

[Jim Eshelman]

A few anecdotal examples - idle and based on whatever is in my SF data base at the moment. None of these mean anything on their own. Mostly, it is the Falls for which I have the better examples.

Paul Ryan has the Sun at the Fall of Jupiter (15° Capricorn), which in theory would make him one of the least Jupiter types anywhere.

Mohandas Gandhi, the great avatat of peace, had Moon at 28° Cancer, the Fall of Mars - theoretically the least martial degree in the zodiac. So does Jane Fonda, a known (and occasionally reviled) peace activist. So did Jeane Dixon. The Sun is in the Fall of Mars for other people who have taken a strong stand for peace (though less dramatically than the above): Carol Mosely Braun, Madonna, King George IV, and Justice Stephen Breyer.

Moon in the exaltation degree of Saturn (21° Libra) gives us Elizabeth Taylor and Jimmy Carter. I don't know what to make of this except that the Libra Moon is really obvious for both of them

Fascinatingly, the great foe of capitalism, Karl Marx, had his Sun at 21° Aries, the Fall of Saturn. Less obviously to me, the same degree as the Sun of Catherine II, Orson Welles, and Tony Blair (and the singer Adele). It makes no immediate sense to me that Ronald Reagan and Meryl Streep were born with Moon in the degree of Saturn's Fall.

Moon in the exaltation degree of Sun (19° Aries) doesn't disclose any patterns that are evident to me, but it has an interesting group of people (which might be the whole point, given that we'd theorize that it acts like a Moon-Sun conjunction): Karl Markx, Diana Ross, Edgar Cayce, and Bill Bixby.

More interestingly, Sun is in its Fall degree for Marie Antoinette (too royal-trained in the wrong context in the wrong timing), Matthew McConaughey, and James K. Polk (a tepid president for the most part(). Not enough here for me to draw even preliminary conclusions. Moon in Sun's Fall gives us Justice Ginsburg and Edward Snowden!

An interest list of eminence and exaltation were born with their Sun in a humble constellation but a (theoretically) unhumble degree: Sun was at 15° Virgo, the hypsoma of Mercury, at the births of Queen Elizabeth I, Pres. Jimmy Carter, Chief Justice William Renquist, and Rev. Al Sharpton. I have no one at hand with Sun or Moon at 15° Pisces.

Sun was in the Fall of Venus (27° Virgo) at the birth of Aleister Crowley and X-Files creator Chris Carter. (Spooky!)

This is all too little, but thought it might be fun.

[Jim Eshelman]

Moon in Sun's Fall gives us Justice Ginsburg and Edward Snowden!

For Justice Ruth Ginsburg, here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article:

"Ginsburg spent a considerable portion of her legal career as an advocate for the advancement of women's rights as a constitutional principle."

At age thirteen, Ruth acted as the 'camp rabbi' at a Jewish summer program ..."

"In 1960, despite a strong recommendation from the dean of Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter turned down Ginsburg for a clerkship position because of her gender."

The general tenor seems to be that from an early age, it was an important issue that a woman can (and should be) able to do anything a man can, in the social structure. Astrologically, let's try a few key-words in here: women's equality; tearing down the patriarchal monopoly.

For Edward Snowden, The issue is less about women's rights, but more broadly about the people's rights to decide for themselves, against a domineering information monopoly. Again, there is is this motif of undermining the power (Sun) structure.

Comments are welcome.

-Derek

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm kicking this up to the top because I found it interesting. Maybe others would, too.

[Arena]

Jim, I have indeed always found this subject very interesting and a way to test sidereal vs tropical.
However, your first posts in this thread suggest that it can only be sidereal, right?
I've always looked at this as it would need to be compared so we would have examples from both zodiacs.
I wonder how much should be allowed as orb to those exaltation and fall degrees. The fall is always at the exact opposite to the exaltation.

Anyway, you made some interesting observations here except for Reagan that does not make sense at all... OR it makes sense possibly in the way that his methods were not a success for the nation in the long term. We've seen that now.

I've observed my own chart, but not sure if I can make sense of it.
If I look at it with approx 1 degree orb, I have Sun conj Jupiter's exaltation and Mars in it's own degree of fall.

I guess the Sun is a lucky Sun then, I would think possibly making me a little lazy at times but am not religious in the conventional sense at all and am very critical of conventional education but on the other hand very interested in exploring the ways people and children learn. I would possibly also say that my running for high positions/politics might be a factor to consider when it comes to a Sun-Jup conj (if we are treating this as conj). But the Mars to me is a bit contradictory since that Mars placement should be the most peaceful of all in the zodiac (I am all for peace of course, like most people in this world are I guess), but then it is square my Moon in Aries. I am guessing that it is the Moon in Aries that gives me the short temper even though I am a peace loving person.

[Jim Eshelman]

I wonder how much should be allowed as orb to those exaltation and fall degrees. The fall is always at the exact opposite to the exaltation.

My sense has been 1-2°. or the degree and about 1° either side.

I wouldn't think this is a particularly good tool for comparing zodiacs since this, in itself, is an uncertain, highly exploratory factor, and it's generally a bad idea to try to distinguish unknown/uncertains with other unknowns/uncertains.

I've observed my own chart, but not sure if I can make sense of it.
If I look at it with approx 1 degree orb, I have Sun conj Jupiter's exaltation and Mars in it's own degree of fall.

Yes, this thread is my "feeling my way through" what value this ight have. I don't think Mars in its fall degree would make an un-Mars person, for example, if she had an Aries Moon closely conjunct Mars so one might wonder what qualitative difference it makes.

I guess the Sun is a lucky Sun then, I would think possibly making me a little lazy at times but am not religious in the conventional sense at all and am very critical of conventional education but on the other hand very interested in exploring the ways people and children learn. I would possibly also say that my running for high positions/politics might be a factor to consider when it comes to a Sun-Jup conj (if we are treating this as conj).

With Jupiter the exact degree of Descendant, this is hard to filter out.

[Arena]

Yes I agree, it is hard to determine those.
In my case, the Moon-Mars square and Moon's position in Aries changes things a lot. Although the fall degree of Mars may soften things a bit in this case. But I would think that a person with Mars in it's degree of fall could possibly be a sign of a rather non-Mars person.

And you are quite right about the angular Jupiter as well in my case.

I would guess these kind of factors need to be weighed for all people being looked at with those exaltation degrees. Even though there might be something to this, it can indeed be quite hard to distinguish what is what.

[By Jove]

Jim, do you have any idea about charting exact exaltation degrees of outer planets? Based on the pattern of traditional planet exaltations it could go like this:

Sun (exalted at 19° Aries)
Moon (exalted at 3° Taurus)
Mercury (exalted at 15° Virgo)
Venus (exalted at 27° Pisces)
Mars (exalted at 28° Capricorn)
Jupiter (exalted at 15° Cancer)

Saturn (exalted at 21° Libra)
Uranus (exalted at ?? Scorpio)
Neptune (exalted at ?? Gemini)
Pluto (exalted at ?? Sagittarius)


I know you prefer Pluto exalting Gemini but I'm just working with this pattern here.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, do you have any idea about charting exact exaltation degrees of outer planets?

Well, we've discussed this before. Though I do have opinions about it, I think we're better off not listing exaltations for them.

I'm curious why you picked Pluto with Sagittarius, since it's so severely polarized that, if anything, I'd give Pluto to Gemini.

[By Jove]

It matches the overall logical scheme, but I was never too sure of that placement. Let me just lay that out there.

[DDonovanKinsolving]

It matches the overall logical scheme...

What overall scheme are you seeing?

[Arena]

Jim, I feel the need for a consistent pattern.

Why are you measuring Mars rising instead of setting? What degree is Mars at for heliacal setting in the year 786 or 785?

Why would there not be a consistency in whether to use heliacal setting or rising? Why all the planets at setting and then only Mars at it's rising?

I found something about this online, that states:

The exaltations we use today bear a striking similarity to the heliacal settings of the planets during the calender year of 786-785 BC

*emphasis on settings made by me.
http://www.edkohout.com/mundane/earthday-02.html

I would calculate this myself if I had the tools, but I don't. Could you please post Mars' heliacal setting in the year 786 or 785, whichever is the right year? When I input this data in astro.com the position of Moon and Sun are nowhere near what you've posted above.

Let's assume you actually found the origin of the exaltation degrees by following in Fagan's and Gleadow's footsteps (except the Moon, which is way off) ...could you please post the positions for the outer planets with the same method in that same year? Following the same pattern of measuring within that same year will give us their exaltation degrees, we don't need to guess them.

The new year (that we call 786 BC) began at the first appearance of the crescent Moon at Babylon on April 3, 786 BC.

Moon's exaltation at 3° Taurus was theoretically its longitude at this same moment. It doesn't work out that way. (Fagan knew it.) Moon was 29°23' Aries, not 3° Taurus. Even parallax wouldn't have displaced it another 4°. Moon did not enter Taurus until 7:45 PM, when it had set, and didn't reach 3° Taurus until after midnight.

About the Moon's position ... what happens if you move on to put Moon at 3 Taurus, after midnight? Where would the Sun be and where would Venus be at that time? Is it possible that we should be using degrees for that time instead? Because that is when the Moon is more visible. Just trying to get my head around this, since you do seem to be onto something here.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jim, why are you going back and forth between year 785 and 786 in your first post? Isn't it supposed to be one or the other? Something a bit off about that inconsistency. I feel the need for a consistent pattern.

The year beginning at the vernal equinox 786 BC continues until the vernal equinox 785 BC - the same calendar year for the region - which is why the February 785 BC mention for Mars.

IF the year started in April 786, isn't it running 12 months until next April? So why are you measuring Mars in 785 instead of 786? And why are you measuring Mars rising instead of setting? What degree is Mars at for heliacal setting in the year 786?

You realize this is BC, right? 785 BC comes after 786 BC.

Why would there not be a consistency in whether to use heliacal setting or rising? Why all the planets at setting and then only Mars at it's rising?

No idea. That's the pattern.

Well, not exactly "no idea." I don't think anything got started that year. My personal opinion, which I cannot prove, is that the exaltation degrees had been known long before, and they found a year where their favorite astronomical phenomena would all hit sometime during the year, and they took whichever A or B would mark it. (But, as mentioned, that's just my opinion.)

I would calculate this myself if I had the tools, but I don't. Could you please post Mars' heliacal setting in the year 786?

786 BC according to our present calendar, or the calendar then in use which began a year near the vernal equinox? If the latter, then I have - it occurred in February 785 BC.

Let's assume you actually found the origin of the exaltation degrees

I didn't Fagan did, in the late 1940s.

(except the Moon, which is way off) ...could you please post the positions for the outer planets with the same method in that same year? Following the same pattern of measuring within that same year will give us their exaltation degrees, we don't need to guess them.

I don't think these have anything to do with anything because there's no reason to think the year was causative of these. Nonetheless, for the start of the new year at the Neomenia April 3, 786 BC, 6:30 PM, Babylon (32N32, 44E25), Uranus was 6° Sagittarius, Neptune 16° Aquarius, and Pluto 1° Cancer. (Moon's North Node was 1° Aries.)

But I repeat in the strongest terms, I don't think these have anything to do with anything.

The new year (that we call 786 BC) began at the first appearance of the crescent Moon at Babylon on April 3, 786 BC.

Moon's exaltation at 3° Taurus was theoretically its longitude at this same moment. It doesn't work out that way. (Fagan knew it.) Moon was 29°23' Aries, not 3° Taurus. Even parallax wouldn't have displaced it another 4°. Moon did not enter Taurus until 7:45 PM, when it had set, and didn't reach 3° Taurus until after midnight.

About the Moon's position ... what happens if you move on to put Moon at 3 Taurus, after midnight? Where would the Sun be and where would Venus be at that time? Is it possible that we should be using degrees for that time instead? Because that is when the Moon is more visible. Just trying to get my head around this, since you do seem to be onto something here.

Again, I don't want credit for what wasn't my work. What we're talking about here was one of the foundational discoveries of Sidereal astrology and a significant archaeological solution 70 years ago. It's Cyril Fagan's discovery, published in great detail in Zodiacs Old & New.

The Moon wasn't visible hours later. In fact, it wasn't visible minutes later. Nonetheless, to answer your question, Sun and Venus had not changed their degree by the time Moon reached 3° Taurus between 1 and 2 AM. (But there's also nothing of importance about that hour.)

[Jim Eshelman]

I just registered it was Mars helical setting you requested (sorry, I've been up 30 hours). According to ZO&N, Mars set helically August 22 at 27° Virgo.

[Arena]

Hahaha, sorry Jim... I edited my post above while you were answering it
I realized the 786 and 785.
And yes, this came from sources other than yourself, but it's good for us to look into these.

IF we are getting the planets degrees right for this year in history, it is indeed possible that it's also right for the outer planets.

[Jim Eshelman]

Oh, anything is possible. But it isn't likely. There'd have to be some causative element, or (comparably bizarre) the Babylonians would have to have known about the outer planets and their positions.

Besides, Sagittarius is quite in-Uranian except for a detail or two, Aquarius similarly un-Neptunian, and Cancer is so Jupiterian that it would be hard to think of it as Plutonian (besides, Cancerians are so well behaved - oh, well, except the ones with Aries Moons <vbg>).

[Arena]

for the start of the new year at the Neomenia April 3, 786 BC, 6:30 PM, Babylon (32N32, 44E25), Uranus was 6° Sagittarius, Neptune 16° Aquarius, and Pluto 1° Cancer.

I was rather looking for the outers' heliacal rising and settings ... not position on that day.
The exaltation degrees seem to have to do with the heliacal rising or settings for all planets, so that is why I asked.

But I don't need an answer right now since you've been up for 30 hours. You need some sleep

Cancerians are so well behaved - oh, well, except the ones with Aries Moons

Hahaha, well you might find it hard to believe, but a friend of mine once said that I was able to act so "proper" at times ... I guess I just do that in the right moments/circumstances when I feel it is needed.

[Jim Eshelman]

You might be interested to know that Venus conjoined Sun June 25 786 BC, at Tropical 24 Gemini, meaning that her heliacal setting was about 46 days earlier, and heliacal rising about 29 days later.

Therefore, her heliacal setting occurred (barring irregular weather etc.) May 10 when she was at 12° Taurus. Her heliacal rising occurred July 24, at 14° Leo.

[Arena]

Interesting. I think Taurus can fit well with Venus exaltation. But so does Pisces.

[Arena]

Ok, I understand this much better now after having time to finish that article I found:
http://www.edkohout.com/mundane/earthday-02.html

So, the hypsomata actually means "hiding place" and therefore it is around the time of heliacal setting or rising that the planets can hide (so therefore we also need those for the outers). From what I understand in the article, it needs to be when they are in forward motion. There is only one possibility for Pluto and Neptune, Pluto stays in Cancer all that year (using this ayanamsa) and Neptune stays in Aquarius all year. But Uranus moves from Sagi into Scorpio and then back. But the article does point out the fact that those outers are not visible to the eye and therefore can not have heliacal rising or setting as it was noted in those days and therefore possibly they don't have an exaltation degree.

The luminaries are treated differently and the article makes a good explanation about that Moon position, I encourage you to read the article to understand that the Moon's position has to do with the full Moon that month. So on the day of full Moon, April 17th, the degree of the Sun is Moon's exaltation degree.

I am not sure though that I can understand the logic to the thought that a planet's best possible place would be when it is hidden. Unless it is simply having to do with being visibly close to the Sun, meaning that the Sun is actually bringing out the strongest expression.

Further about the expression of planets in exaltation or domicile, I've just read that planetary expression is always strongest in its domicile.

[Jim Eshelman]

Interesting. I think Taurus can fit well with Venus exaltation. But so does Pisces.

This goes along with my theory that there was nothing causative about 786 BC - the priests were picking a "best fit" of information they already had, with an occasional wave to a 29° Aries visibly near Pleiades going, "Close enough!"

[Arena]

This goes along with my theory that there was nothing causative about 786 BC - the priests were picking a "best fit" of information they already had, with an occasional wave to a 29° Aries visibly near Pleiades going, "Close enough!"

No it does not. There is a very logical explanation to the Moon's exaltation degree and seems to have been carefully articulated if that explanation is right. It is the Sun's degree on the first full Moon after that New year's day, or Taurus 2,21; the third degree of Taurus. Read about it in the article.

It does seem to me that this year was a very special year to them with that Temple of Nabu.

[Arena]

The domicile question is indeed also relevant to the exaltation question.
It does makes more and more sense to me that the planet's domiciles are in sequential distance from the Sun and that therefore Pluto's domicile is Aries.
First are the luminaries. Some say Cancer is for both Moon and Sun, then comes Leo for Sun alone, Virgo for Mercury, Libra for Venus, Scorpio for Mars, Sagi for Jupiter, Capri for Saturn, Aquarius for Uranus, Pisces for Neptune, Aries for Pluto, Taurus for Eris (sensual), Gemini for one of the other dwarf planets that belong to the Kuiper belt like Pluto; Makemake or Haumea.

https://theplanets.org/kuiper-belt/

https://theplanets.org/dwarf-planets/

I am not stating that this is so, I am rather thinking aloud as I am reading about these things and letting my mind wonder while learning.

[mikestar13]

I don't think these have anything to do with anything because there's no reason to think the year was causative of these. Nonetheless, for the start of the new year at the Neomenia April 3, 786 BC, 6:30 PM, Babylon (32N32, 44E25), Uranus was 6° Sagittarius, Neptune 16° Aquarius, and Pluto 1° Cancer. (Moon's North Node was 1° Aries.)

Bingo. Fagan's unlocking the code was an astonishingly great achievement and critical to the history of Sidereal Astrology, to say the least. But the code itself is Random Schematic Nonsense (to borrow one of my own topic titles). The causative explanation (planets are exalted at certain degrees because of some astronomical events in 786 BCE is what I would call ludicrous if I were being polite and somewhere between malignant nonsense and blasphemous nonsense if I weren't. Cyril Fagan was capable of being mistaken, even badly, since he wasn't God and didn't even play Him on TV (though were my track record as good as Fagan's I might be tempted to mistake myself for God). He wasn't capable of being ludicrous. Rob Hand properly rejects the causative explanation "out of hand" (may God forgive me that pun). But rejecting an explanation does not require rejecting the thing itself. Oh, scientist disprove lumineferous ether so light doesn't exist, right? The Babylonian of around this time inherited some knowledge from their own forbears or perhaps Egypt and didn't have an explanation, so they made one up. Now that's never happened in this history of astrology nor in any other human history.

[SteveS]

FWIW, I am convinced this Hypsomatic year business 786 B.C. Fagan writes about, probably has much more to do with a chief god of the ancients, and that is the god Nabu (Aldebaran 15 Taurus). Fagan tells us this Hypsomatic 786 B.C. raises another mystery by writing:

Why B.C. 786-785?
In solving one mystery we are confronted with another…Nabu (Aldebaran 15 Taurus), the god of astrology, the “Forecaster” and “Writer” of fate, was removed from his old temple in Nineveh and installed in his new sanctuary at Kalakh in B.C. 786, the year when all the planets known to the ancients were in the degrees of their exaltations either on 1st Nisan or on the dates of their helical phenomena.

I still have doubts about these exaltations degrees, probably because I have only been closely associated with one person in my life who had an exalted degree of the lights (Moon). But, IMO, based on my recent personal individual objective sight of history for the USA, the ingress of the Sun into 15 Taurus (Aldebaran) has clearly forecasted with my main selected principles of Sidereal Astrology, the BIGger mundane events in the entire USA history.

[Soft Alpaca]

Jim I have Mars at 29 degrees Capricorn, would this be considered exaltion. What would some traits be if a planets in full degree or sign exaltation? Are they the same traits just more powerful? Or does it act more as an angle, elevating the frequency the planet is used not strength?

I wouldn't say i am war like in a traditional manor (less ranks and structure), it's more of a gurellia style of fighting. Would you see an Exalted Capricorn Mars as using more rigid structure or leaning to the wild traits of Capricorn?

[Jim Eshelman]

I'm not all that stuck in the exact degree. I consider Mars anywhere in Capricorn as exalted an, additionally, consider 28° as an especially Mars degree.

I would interpret it as the Mars in Capricorn interpretation in general, best current version being the one I posted earlier that you saw.

[Soft Alpaca]

Ok thanks for clarifying that for me Jim.

[Arena]

IF we consider those exaltation degrees to be connected to Jupiter, then we would only call those planets exalted in the degrees matching those Jupiter degrees. You wouldn't consider the whole sign.
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1954&hilit=exalted ... ter#p13878

[Jim Eshelman]

I like the IF

I do consider that the one, bottom line starter consideration is that the constellation in which a planet is exalted partakes of the nature of the planet.

But whether, as suspected, the degrees have any distinctive quality, that would be a separate thing.

[Veronica]

So, at the times supposedly marking the origins of the exaltation degrees, the seven planets were placed as follows:

Sun (exalted at 19° Aries) 18°53' Aries
Moon (exalted at 3° Taurus) 29°23' Aries
Mercury (exalted at 15° Virgo) 14°41' Virgo
Venus (exalted at 27° Pisces) 26°34' Pisces
Mars (exalted at 28° Capricorn) 27°33' Capricorn
Jupiter (exalted at 15° Cancer) 15°14' Cancer
Saturn (exalted at 21° Libra) 21°09' Libra

Are the planets at the fall/ detriment at the polar opposite?

Does that also signify meaning for squares to those points?

[Jupiter Sets at Dawn]

Are the planets at the fall/ detriment at the polar opposite?

Fall: Yes. Detriment is the opposite sign from the one they rule.

Does that also signify meaning for squares to those points?

No.

[Veronica]

Are the planets at the fall/ detriment at the polar opposite?

Fall: Yes. Detriment is the opposite sign from the one they rule.

Does that also signify meaning for squares to those points?

No.

Got it.
Thanks