A question about detriment

Is it a good idea to use detriment as a form of essential debility? Detriment is a term I’ve known and used since the very beginning of getting into astrology but it’s only recently that I learned that apparently detriment wasn’t a thing originally. Not really sure when it originated though, I think late Perso-Arabic astrologers used it (need some enlightenment on the matter).

The concept of detriment makes sense to me. Maybe it wasn’t used originally but I can see why it appeared. But still, I’m not too sure if I should be using it or not. If we step aside from an argument “Well, I was taught to do things this way so my opinion is definitely correct” and look into the meaning of this concept and its practical application, is it worth using or not? I need opinions.

P.S. I'm posting this in the traditional board to get some historical perspective as well. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that any modern astrologer will say that this term is worth being used while I expect some disagreement between traditional astrologers.

Solar Flare said:

Is it a good idea to use detriment as a form of essential debility?

Click to expand...

That is pretty much the definition of detriment. Its one of the only 2 essential debilities (the other being fall)

Solar Flare said:

Detriment is a term I’ve known and used since the very beginning of getting into astrology but it’s only recently that I learned that apparently detriment wasn’t a thing originally. Not really sure when it originated though, I think late Perso-Arabic astrologers used it (need some enlightenment on the matter).

The concept of detriment makes sense to me. Maybe it wasn’t used originally but I can see why it appeared. But still, I’m not too sure if I should be using it or not. If we step aside from an argument “Well, I was taught to do things this way so my opinion is definitely correct” and look into the meaning of this concept and its practical application, is it worth using or not? I need opinions.

P.S. I'm posting this in the traditional board to get some historical perspective as well. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that any modern astrologer will say that this term is worth being used while I expect some disagreement between traditional astrologers.

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure when authors began using detriment as a form of debility, its possible tht hellenic writtings may not have used this concept. Doing a quick re-check on Ptolomy it seems he doesn't (unless I missed some chapter).

Its possible that the idea derives from the belief that a planet in opposition to the house it rules would be considered a form of debility in some of the techniques the hellenistic astrologers employed, and perhaps that derived into the more commonly known form of "exile" (or detriment). It also seems to be similar with the thinking of fall, as the opposite of exaltation, which does exist in hellenic writtings.

To make another mention, while the houses of "joy" (like Mercury rejoices in the 1st, sun in the 9th, etc) are quite old, but the house of "sorrow" which would be the opposite appear in medieval writtings only (I believe, I would have to check, but as far as I remember, nothing in hellenic writtings).

This is a very good question. I'm gonna go re-read some chapters now

Dirius said:

That is pretty much the definition of detriment. Its one of the only 2 essential debilities (the other being fall)



I'm not really sure when authors began using detriment as a form of debility, its possible tht hellenic writtings may not have used this concept. Doing a quick re-check on Ptolomy it seems he doesn't (unless I missed some chapter).

Its possible that the idea derives from the belief that a planet in opposition to the house it rules would be considered a form of debility in some of the techniques the hellenistic astrologers employed, and perhaps that derived into the more commonly known form of "exile" (or detriment). It also seems to be similar with the thinking of fall, as the opposite of exaltation, which does exist in hellenic writtings.

To make another mention, while the houses of "joy" (like Mercury rejoices in the 1st, sun in the 9th, etc) are quite old, but the house of "sorrow" which would be the opposite appear in medieval writtings only (I believe, I would have to check, but as far as I remember, nothing in hellenic writtings).

This is a very good question. I'm gonna go re-read some chapters now

Click to expand...

Well, shouldn't peregrination also be considered a form of debility? Or is it not debility in itself, but only lack of dignity?

I was just reading the blog dedicated to the traditional astrology, with the blog author mainly using the sources of Hellenistic astrology. Here's what he writes on this page (http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/?p=764&):

...detriment was not an actual concept in itself in Hellenistic astrology, the way that fall, domicile, exaltation, and such were, so I don’t agree with its use...

Click to expand...

He mentioned it in some of his other articles as well, always highlighting that detriment didn't appear as a concept in Hellenistic astrology, so that's why he doesn't use it. By the way, I guess you know but detriment is not a thing in Vedic astrology as well, unlike fall. And since (from what I know) original rulerships/exaltations/falls were not invented in India, but brought there from the West, most probably originally there really weren't any detriments. It seems like fall has always been a valid term in terms of essential debility and detriment could have been made by analogy.

Really? I've heard about houses of sorrow but I thought it was more like an addition of enthusiasts haha. Oh well, I've never seen it mentioned anywhere other than this forum (if I'm not mistaken).

Alright, good luck! Let me and other forum members know if you find anything interesting.

In my own experience, planets in fall tend to be more consistent in their wonkiness than planets in detriment. I'm familiar with the article on that website, and I agree that essential debility can be too overblown when analysing a chart. Off the top of my head I can remember two prominent individuals with Mercury in Sagittarius conjunct the ascendant (so their "broken" Mercuries are on display for all the world to see). These men are Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Ted Turner. A cursory look at both of their lives would show you the power and effectiveness of their Mercuries which a conventional view of detrimented planets might oppose.

And the blanket generalization that a planet in essential debility = bad was not the unanimous view in the tradition. There were astrologers who had a more nuanced approach to the planets in signs, akin to how modern astrologers delineate. For example in the Mathesis Maternus outlines how the various planets behave in certain signs, so that Mercury in Jupiter's sign (its detriment) would bestow quite positive things (can't remember any specifics though - it's been at least a couple of years now). Contrary to popular belief, "traditional" astrologers weren't all condemning people to death because of a little essential debility. And the famous table of dignities and debilities with the accompanying scores doesn't help persons to go beyond the fact that there is more to the where in the zodiac a planet lies.

published 10 May 2018


Essential Dignities and Debilities in Traditional Astrology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVz6xT7yHDs

The video recording of episode 156 of The Astrology Podcast
Charles Obert discusses the concept of essential dignities and debilities
and how they are used to determine the condition of a planet in an astrological chart.